"Gamism," The Forge, and the Elephant in the Room

[Balesir]

OK - I surrender. I'm out - bye.

 

[Umbran]

Ain't no arguin' with blind hate. I'm out - bye.

And there ain't no discussin' when someone is willing to label the others as "blind", so there you go.

 

[Rogue Agent]

No, I'm saying that what the player is focussed on creating when a third party is responsible for setting the parameters of the situation/story is different from what they are focussed on adding to the game when the responsibility for generating a story is theirs and that is what they want to do.

Probably true. But saying that people interested in experiencing stories that have had their parameters set by somebody else constitutes an interest in "simulating" something is patent nonsense.

Trying to use stance, technique, and/or division of authority at the game table to create a dividing line between those who have an interest in "story" and those who have an interest in "simulation" is a really bad idea. Stances and techniques aren't goals; they're tools for achieving goals.

And the reality, of course, is that most stances, techniques, and divisions of authority at the game table can find applications across different goals. For example, consider the modern technique of breaking up the authority of the traditional GM and spreading it around the table: Lots of Forge games use that for narrativist goals. But Robin D. Laws' Rune used it for gamist goals. And I've known lots of campaigns in which different players "owned" different parts of the game world, which can make the technique very applicable for simulationist goals.

By those lights, the Threefold is, too

Like most of what you post here, your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. The Threefold is very specifically focused on one method of classification. That's why it works.

By those lights, as you say, GNS fails because it isn't focused. It is, instead, a muddled attempt to overload multiple metrics onto a single scale.

It's like somebody said: "There are these related concepts of 'weight' and 'mass'. But, in practice, they're different. So I'm going to separate the two and say that 'weight' is actually just a kind of frequency. And then I'm going to spend ten years trying to make my concept of 'frequency' coherent despite the fact that I've erroneously included weight in my definition of the term."

It's not the weight and mass are the same thing. It's just that weight isn't a frequency.

You may well be right. It's not a question that has much concerned me.

It only interests me insofar as I think correctly identifying that most story-railroaders are primarily interested in story is the quickest way to show them techniques that they can use to pursue their interest in story without using the, IMO, dysfunctional techniques of railroading.

Whereas, OTOH, trying to convince them that their use of a railroading technique means that what they're really interested in simulation doesn't accomplish anything at all: People who are actually interested in simulation aren't going to find anything of interest in the games of the story-railroaders (or vice versa); and the techniques one group uses won't be particularly useful to the other without a lot of modification.

If the group is enjoying itself without reservation and isn't interested in experimentation, of course, this is usually all irrelevant. Tiger Woods might spend a year making micro-adjustments in his swing in order to optimize his game, but most of us are probably perfectly content to just play like Tiger Woods.

 

[pemerton]

Story-telling railroads vs story-creation games.

I agree those are different. I tend to think story-telling-railroad* should be its own classification.

*And the players who love them.

I think this is the type of game with which GNS has the most trouble, because GNS is predicated on this being a dysfunctional approach.

To set up an analogy: if an account of literary forms can't really find room for Tom Clancy, is this an idictment of the account, or is it consistent with the fact that Clancy is not really literature (despite being popular)? It's against forum rules to express a view on this (as far as gaming is concerned), but I think that this is one important issue for GNS and the playstyles whose legitimacy it excludes.

He opens by labeling a simulationism an abdication of responsibity and purpose. He describes almost like a moral failing. People will and should react negatively to that.

I think this is part and parcel of GNS being an interpretive account of a creative activity. To continue my analogy - should readers of Clancy react negatively to a literary theory that dismisses Clancy? Or should they reevaluate their own tastes in literature? I'm not suggesting one answer or the other is to be preferred, but it is not a sufficient refutation of a critical analysis of literature that it would force the second (reevaluation) alternative.

Similarly, Edwards wants simulationists - particularly a certain sort of storyteller simulationist - to reevaluate their RPGing. He thinks what they're doing is a defective form of the activity. This is what some criticism calls for, and criticism of this sort is not per se flawed. It depends on the arguments presented.

Also in post number three Ron says he classifies gamers using GNS.

From that post:

This is not to say a person cannot demonstrate more than one of the priorities. However, in my experience, a person WILL tend to emphasize one of them, or have a favorite among the three. At that point, I say, "You are [fill in]."

. . .

Sure, they might not be constrained to "their" outlook 100% of the time. I am not claiming that sort of rigidity; it's not like having blue eyes or brown eyes. But the actual classification of the behaviors, especially when they are consistent over time for a person, is valid.

Therefore I make no apologies regarding my points in this thread. Obviously those points don't apply to the (hypothetical) individuals who slip and slide among the three priorities like little pixies. My points DO apply to the many people I have known, seen, communicated with, and role-played with.​

So I am a narrativist who can also enjoy light gamism, and modest doses of CoC or RQ/RM simulationinsm. [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] sounds more like a slipping and sliding pixie!

However story-creation games can be Edwards-Narrativism, but don't have to be. They can be other sorts of Dramatist play.

Whereas I tend to agree with Balesir - what would it be but narrativism? There's no doubt that Edwards, in his "official" definitions of narrativist play, states it too narrowly than he actually uses the term.

Is not the addressing of premise in Narrativist play and challange in gamist play also exploration?

Perhaps, for certain senses of "exploration". The contrast, for me, is between "pre-given" vs "determined via play".

In some games, the outcome of challenges is pre-given (eg because the GM will fudge to make sure that the PCs survive a fight). In other games, the outcome of challenges is determined via play, including the decisions of the players.

In some games, the thematic/story content is pre-given (eg classic D&D alignment rules pre-determine what counts as moral or immoral behaviour). In other games, the meaning of thematic content is determined via play, including the decisions of the players.

(Note that "determined via play" here is very different from "improvised by the GM". The key point is that the decisions of the players, as expressed in the actual course of playing the game, make a difference to the outcome.)

These contrasts obviously are not the only way in which the ideas of exploration, pre-given, determined via play, etc can be articulated. But this particular articulation does capture something of great importance to me in RPGing, and The Forge is the first place where I encountered this stuff being set out in some detail, with a degree of sophisticiation and with reference to a wide range of RPG systems.

for many people they want Purist for System mechanics to support what is Gamist play or High Concept Simulation to pursue Narrative play or either to support dramatic/story play.

I think the distinction, in GNS/big model, between "agendas" and "techniques" is a bit unstable, as your examples show.

Edwards himself notes the drifting of Champions play from purist-for-system goals towards gamist or narrativist goals - but the underlying mechanical chassis remains the same. Burning Wheel is a contemporary game whose underlying mechanics are highly purist-for-system, but which is intended to be played in a more narrativist fashion. It is an interesting illustration of what you need to do to get that sort of outcome: in BW, it is particularly (i) the guidelines to GMs for adjudicating failure (focus on intent rather than task), (ii) the PC advancement mechanics (which give players an incentive to sometimes take on challenges that they can't overcome), and (iii) overlaying a fate point system on top of the personality/disadvantage mechanics.

I've played RM with a drift to narrativism, but not as coherently as BW - a host of table understandings that it's hard for me to fully identify, but the existence of which becomes obvious when I look at the mainstream of RM play on the ICE boards, were central.

And I'm sure there is plenty of drifting of high concept games to narrativist play - personality mechanics, fate point mechanics and the like would again be obvious focal points for this sort of drift.

And the fact that the only known empirical model we have bears no resemblance to Ron Edwards' hypotheses.

This was mentioned upthread. As I said earlier, Edwards is not making a hypothesis to be tested via market research. He's putting forward an interpretive theory, to be "tested" by its capacity to deliver insight into human activity and self-understanding. My own view is that this cannot be value-free (because people cannot get the requisite degree of evaluative distance from their own activities). But as I also said, the best interpretive theories, for my money, utterly kill market research for power and insight.

WotC's research may well have helped them sell books. But I don't know that it adds a lot to our understanding of RPGing as a creative human endeavour.

looks like maybe Justin Alexander = Rogue Agent?

On these boards, I think that Justin Alexander = The Beginning of the End.

 

[S'mon]

It only interests me insofar as I think correctly identifying that most story-railroaders are primarily interested in story is the quickest way to show them techniques that they can use to pursue their interest in story without using the, IMO, dysfunctional techniques of railroading.

Whereas, OTOH, trying to convince them that their use of a railroading technique means that what they're really interested in simulation doesn't accomplish anything at all: People who are actually interested in simulation aren't going to find anything of interest in the games of the story-railroaders (or vice versa); and the techniques one group uses won't be particularly useful to the other without a lot of modification.

If the group is enjoying itself without reservation and isn't interested in experimentation, of course, this is usually all irrelevant. Tiger Woods might spend a year making micro-adjustments in his swing in order to optimize his game, but most of us are probably perfectly content to just play like Tiger Woods.

I'm assuming they're mostly interested in story-experiencing rather than story-creation, maybe while adding a bit of 'colour', as I think Pemerton has said. That would be for the (eg) fudged linear games where the GM promises to take you through to the end, one way or another. There are also Gamist linear games where there's a challenge in surviving to the end and a possibility of failure, eg due to TPK.

 

[Guest 85555]

Pemerton, I am sorry but edwards is not engaged in anything approaching literary criticism. When your critical analysis of play includes labelling some gamers as menally damaged and abused, you are going to get a negative reaction.

Also Edwards is he one holding up RPGs as art, simulationists aren't really doing that. They are just saying their style is a legitimate approach to gaming not that it is inherently more meaningful than others. So your literary analogy just seems flawed. Besides his theory is little more than him prnouncing his prefer styles as meaningful and disparaging or dismissing styles he doesn' agree with. I don't think there is any reason or need for those of us who rejevt his theories to re-evaluate how we game because Ron disapproves.

 

[Umbran]

This was mentioned upthread. As I said earlier, Edwards is not making a hypothesis to be tested via market research. He's putting forward an interpretive theory, to be "tested" by its capacity to deliver insight into human activity and self-understanding.

What is "insight"? A grasping of inner workings, right? How do we know that what is delivered is actual insight, and not just a load of hooey? How do we know we better grasp our players through GNS than by other means?

He gives us a model - called it that himself. The test of any model is how closely it's results and forms mirror reality. If his model does not give results similar to reality, its ability to give us insight into how people actually work in this activity is questionable, at best.

Now, if you noted that the WotC market research was not specifically geared to test the accuracy of this model, and as such that research does not strictly disprove the model's accuracy, you'd be correct. That would be a valid critique.

However, the WotC research didn't set out to prove any particular model, but just to gather information and see what could be seen. If GNS were accurate, you'd still expect a segmentation study in the same general area to give you a three-dimensional result, rather than a 2-D arrangement. You're not assured of that, as it depends on the nature of the questions and the analysis, but I still find the contrast notable. YMMV.

But as I also said, the best interpretive theories, for my money, utterly kill market research for power and insight.

As noted before, tell that to Freud. For decades the world thought he brought us insight into the workings of the human mind - it was considered perhaps the best interpretive theory ever. Turns out, though, that his model was inaccurate. Wildly so. Many people were treated on the basis of his model - my psych-professional friends have told me that when you go back and look at the case studies, and aggregate them into statistics, said treatment was about as effective as a placebo treatment.

The analog would be to use GNS theory to design your games, or consider your player's choices - the question is whether doing so gets you better results than using any other method of consideration. Do you get system, campaign, and adventure designs based on GNS than you'd do just going with your gut, or with the 5-room dungeon?

 

[BryonD]

But as I also said, the best interpretive theories, for my money, utterly kill market research for power and insight.

WotC's research may well have helped them sell books. But I don't know that it adds a lot to our understanding of RPGing as a creative human endeavour.

Yes, but what do you think of the Emperor's new shoes?

 

[pemerton]

How do we know we better grasp our players through GNS than by other means?

I don't think GNS is intended primarily to interpret others. It's intended to aid self-understanding, for deigners and players.

He gives us a model - called it that himself. The test of any model is how closely it's results and forms mirror reality.

This may be true, but in the case of most human social and cultural activity, there may be little access to the relevant reality other than via interpretive accounts of one sort or another.

Now, if you noted that the WotC market research was not specifically geared to test the accuracy of this model, and as such that research does not strictly disprove the model's accuracy, you'd be correct. That would be a valid critique.

However, the WotC research didn't set out to prove any particular model, but just to gather information and see what could be seen. If GNS were accurate, you'd still expect a segmentation study in the same general area to give you a three-dimensional result, rather than a 2-D arrangement. You're not assured of that, as it depends on the nature of the questions and the analysis, but I still find the contrast notable.

I think of it more in these terms: a television production company might survey the viewing preferences of a wide range of actual and potential viewers, and try to determine to what degree they prefer various sorts of tropes, characters, plots, themes etc in their television dramas/soap operas. On this basis, it might build up a model of the viewing market, and how a range of shows migth be produced that would satisfy that market in various respects.

Such a model may not (and I suspect is likely not to) correlate to all, many or perhaps even any critical accounts of television dramas. That wouldn't show that the critical accounts are wrong, however. The critical accounts aren't trying to do the same thing. For one thing, they may deploy categories that viewers do not use in their own self-description of their preference. For another, they may develop arguments that certain viewers are systematically mistaken in their own conception of their preference, or are victims of manipulation of some form or another in forming their preference.

To come at it another way: I happen to think that Adorno is wrong in his hostile diagnosis of jazz music. But I don't think that it is enough to refute his criticism, simply to point out that jazz is popular with audiences that include a high number of self-described music lovers.

Do you get system, campaign, and adventure designs based on GNS than you'd do just going with your gut, or with the 5-room dungeon?

In my case, yes.

In no particular order, the Forge approach to talking and thinking about RPGs has provided me with the conceptual resources to understand:

*why RQ and RM play very differently, even though both are ostensibly purist-for-system games (RM's mechanics, both PC build and especially action resolution, create a space for the injection of metagame agendas in a way that RQ does not);

*why I enjoy CoC scenarios and regard GM force as contributing strongly to them, whereas I find the same thing in D&D close to intolerable (the different way in which the mechanics, and the default approach to each game, make it worthwile and rewarding for the player contribution to be confined primarily to colour rather than plot);

*why check-mongering systems (without scene-resolution of some sort, like BW's "let it ride") create serious obstacles to "story now" play (because there is no way to bring scenes to a close without suspending the action resolution mechanics via an exercise of GM force);

*why I could never get satisfactory play experiences from following Gygax's and Pulsipher's advice about playing classic D&D (because they are arguing for a certain type of serious and somewhat austere gamist play, whereas I prefer to prioritise the classic trope and themes of romantic (ie self-consciously pre-modern) fantasy;

*why I find alignment mechanics, OA-style honour mechanics redundant if not positively dysfunctional in play (because these attempt to pre-answer the thematic questions that I prefer to address via play);

*the metagame character of 4e mechanics, and the related contrast between treating mechanics as a model of ingame causal processes, and treating them as setting parameters on the otherwise free narration of ingame causal processes;

*and other stuff as well, but this list is probably long and indicative enough.

Yes, but what do you think of the Emperor's new shoes?

Would you care to elaborate?

 

[pemerton]

I don't think there is any reason or need for those of us who rejevt his theories to re-evaluate how we game because Ron disapproves.

Well that's fair enough.