[Forked from the Dancey Thread] RPG Playstyle Alignments

[TheCrazyMuffinMan]

I cited a cruder version of this in the Dancey thread, and I figured it needed its own thread, so that it wouldn't disrupt the general concept of the thread it forked from.

I see a philosophical lean not unlike D&D alignments here:

First, we have Tactics vs. Immersion (Practical axis)

Then, we have Form vs. Content (Methodical axis)

Those on the side of Tactics tend to want to play the game now, and write the story later (if at all). This was once called "Power", but changed to "Tactics" because while power is important to pure tactical/gamist play, it is only one of many paths to optimization thereof.

Those on the side of Immersion tend to prefer to immerse themselves in the world, or alternatively, live through their character. These are rather different viewpoints, but they approach the same concept. This was formerly called "Story", but changed to Immersion once I realized that some aspects of Storytelling can easily clash with Immersion when misused. This also includes storytelling, though it is a different approach, it deals with the world of the game in question.

Those on the side of Form tend to approach things from the perspective of the medium, rather than the message. Anyone familiar with Marshall McLuhan knows what I'm talking about. Otherwise, they would look at it from the viewpoint of the genre or theme of the game, or compare it to other forms of media.

Those on the side of Content tend to approach things from the perspective of gaming content and internal workings, and put formal/externalist issues on the backburner unless the situation specifically called for them.

The purest form of Tactics/Form mentality will likely lean towards Munchkin, WoW and the like, due to preconceived notions of the types of game. They will probably focus on levels, xp, and the like exclusively when playing D&D, and they will likely run characters not QUITE like Pun-Pun, but definitely in the same spirit of optimization. Those really interested in pushing the rules of the game to the very limit, in an attempt to come as close to "winning" as one can, ideally as soon as possible, would be Tactics/Form.

The purest form of Immersion/Form mentality will likely lean towards Vampire the Masquerade and other obvious immersive games, and would be more than willing to invoke Rem's Law whenever tactical issues are prioritized over immersive ones. They would think very little of the mechanics and much more of their character. They don't let the dice get "in the way of" interacting with the D&D world. Ryan Dancey seems to be channeling this alignment in his blog on RPG reform, albeit more realistically and with far more understanding then the hypothetical IF purist.

The purest form of Tactics/Content mentality will lean towards freeform games like GURPS and classless ones like Shadowrun, and it would be fond of the mechanical aspects of any game, regardless of medium.

In addition, it would likely approach D&D as a specific challenge to building a really good character (or a really good system variant), and work with the system in order to create a character as good as possible for a certain situation (be it diplomatic, combative, stealth, or anything of the sort.) They would want to aid the party by fulfilling their character's archetype to the best of their ability. T/C DMs could create variants or challenges that either restrict or encourage a certain character archetype or class, to see how effectively the players can work under those boundaries.

Ryan Stoughton's E6, which is all about mechanical balance within an existing ruleset, while maintaining the big picture, has shades of T/C.

The purest form of Immersion/Content mentality will likely lean towards many CRPGs, or d20 variants based on existing popular fiction, and they will prioritize their character and their setting, but they won't constrain themselves in either. Many of these would probably want to introduce a crossover character (like a Keyblade Knight) into D&D, and see how a crossover character's mentality would fit in the context of the campaign. IC type Dungeonmasters could easily lean towards outside inspiration for their segments. The Lunar: Silver Star Story fan who wants to introduce a Dragonmaster PrC is an example of Immersion/Content mentality.

As you can imagine, one can be neutral toward either axis, or both axes.

I would be considered either Tactics/Content or Neutral/Content, depending on whether I'm playing or mastering. As a player, I am TC nearly all the way. As a DM and a designer, I swing both ways with regards to priorities (T/I). Overall, I would be NC because I can easily go one way or the other if required.

1) Where do you think you fall under here?
2) What do you think of this (revised) analogy?
3) Any further additions or questions?

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I think this version is improved from the original, but still doesn't hit the nail on the head as well as GNS (which itself isn't all that hot).

I would read as, I guess, Tactics Neutral in this system - which doesn't seem right at all.

First, Tactics and Immersion. I'm more concerned with Story than Immersion, and by excluding the Storytelling stance you've pretty much left me with only the Gamist stance to enjoy (I'm not sure if Gamist is identical to Tactical, but they're close enough).

In terms of Form and Content - I'll admit, these two kind of confuse me. What does 'Form' stand for? My understanding of what you're saying when you reference McLuhan is that a 'Form' person would be a 'system matters' person, yet your examples don't bear this out. I almost never see 'system matters' people gravitate toward D&D, because people who are satisfied by D&D's system rarely become conscious of system's effects due to D&D's ubiquity. Similarly, electronic games discourage rather than encourage 'system matters' play, because you can't alter the system to taste. On the content side, you reference emulating content from other media (tying it to GNS's, but not the Threefold Model's, version of Simulationism), but most people who consciously set out to do this are actually VERY concerned with system, specifically with setting the system up to emulate the material that interests them.

In GNS terms I can easily tell you where I fall, because the three priorities are not connected: I'm a Gamist/Simulationist with Simulationism being strictly keyed to emulating certain other media. I can't tell you where I fall in your system.

GNS is more like multiclassing: you have 'levels' in Narrativist, Simulationist and Gamist. An expanded GNS that includes stances like Immersionist, Cheetoist, etc. is even more this way. As with D&D's actual alignment system vs. its multiclassing system, the latter works a great deal better.

 

[TheCrazyMuffinMan]

I think this version is improved from the original, but still doesn't hit the nail on the head as well as GNS (which itself isn't all that hot).

I would read as, I guess, Tactics Neutral in this system - which doesn't seem right at all.

First, Tactics and Immersion. I'm more concerned with Story than Immersion, and by excluding the Storytelling stance you've pretty much left me with only the Gamist stance to enjoy (I'm not sure if Gamist is identical to Tactical, but they're close enough).

In terms of Form and Content - I'll admit, these two kind of confuse me. What does 'Form' stand for? My understanding of what you're saying when you reference McLuhan is that a 'Form' person would be a 'system matters' person, yet your examples don't bear this out. I almost never see 'system matters' people gravitate toward D&D, because people who are satisfied by D&D's system rarely become conscious of system's effects due to D&D's ubiquity. Similarly, electronic games discourage rather than encourage 'system matters' play, because you can't alter the system to taste. On the content side, you reference emulating content from other media (tying it to GNS's, but not the Threefold Model's, version of Simulationism), but most people who consciously set out to do this are actually VERY concerned with system, specifically with setting the system up to emulate the material that interests them.

In GNS terms I can easily tell you where I fall, because the three priorities are not connected: I'm a Gamist/Simulationist with Simulationism being strictly keyed to emulating certain other media. I can't tell you where I fall in your system.

GNS is more like multiclassing: you have 'levels' in Narrativist, Simulationist and Gamist. An expanded GNS that includes stances like Immersionist, Cheetoist, etc. is even more this way. As with D&D's actual alignment system vs. its multiclassing system, the latter works a great deal better.

Hey! That does work.

I have altered I somewhat to include Story again. Assuming this doesn't oversimplify matters, this should fix the problem you stated.

Also, Form is more about factors external to the game, and content is more about ones internal to the game. Both can be applied to Gamism AND Immersionism.

Maybe another name change is in order on the Methodical Axis (Internal/External). Would that make a clearer distinction?

Maybe the single-axis viewpoint is better off being used than this after all.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Hey! That does work.

I have altered I somewhat to include Story again. Assuming this doesn't oversimplify matters, this should fix the problem you stated.

Also, Form is more about factors external to the game, and content is more about ones internal to the game. Both can be applied to Gamism AND Immersionism.

Maybe another name change is in order on the Methodical Axis (Internal/External). Would that make a clearer distinction?

I still don't understand what you mean by "Internal" and "External."

For example, on what do the following statements interact, and do they show up at conflicting ends:

"The GM can change the rules in this book as much as he wants to suit his tastes or to fit the needs of the story."
"The rules are independent of all the players, including the GM, and players can call the GM on rules violations as much as the inverse."

Is one of these "Internal" and the other "External?" Certainly they imply radically different methodologies, which is what you're saying this axis covers - but I don't know, from your description, which side each would be on, or if they can be associated with sides.

Here's another pair of statements. Explain where, and if, they fall on the methodical axis:

"The rules simulate a world, possibly but not necessarily our own, by providing an internally consistent physical framework."
"The rules simulate a genre or style by rewarding actions and decisions consistent with that style, and punishing actions or decisions inconsistent with it."

This is the key distinction between the GNS and Threefold Model versions of Simulationism, and it *appears* to fit into this axis - but I don't know which is on which end.

Where does the simple statement "System Matters" fall? Or its inverse, "System Doesn't Matter?"

I would consider 'System Matters' internal and 'System Doesn't Matter' external, because the former says the rules themselves should provide the framework and the latter says a force outside the rules, almost invariably the GM, should do so. But neither of these have anything to do with the example you gave.

Where does the following description, which encapsulates what I usually look for in an "RPG," fall:

"A system for providing interesting tactical challenges during the course of a story whose genre is reinforced by the rules."

 

[TheCrazyMuffinMan]

I still don't understand what you mean by "Internal" and "External."

For example, on what do the following statements interact, and do they show up at conflicting ends:

"The GM can change the rules in this book as much as he wants to suit his tastes or to fit the needs of the story."
"The rules are independent of all the players, including the GM, and players can call the GM on rules violations as much as the inverse."

Is one of these "Internal" and the other "External?" Certainly they imply radically different methodologies, which is what you're saying this axis covers - but I don't know, from your description, which side each would be on, or if they can be associated with sides.

Here's another pair of statements. Explain where, and if, they fall on the methodical axis:

"The rules simulate a world, possibly but not necessarily our own, by providing an internally consistent physical framework."
"The rules simulate a genre or style by rewarding actions and decisions consistent with that style, and punishing actions or decisions inconsistent with it."

This is the key distinction between the GNS and Threefold Model versions of Simulationism, and it *appears* to fit into this axis - but I don't know which is on which end.

Where does the simple statement "System Matters" fall? Or its inverse, "System Doesn't Matter?"

I would consider 'System Matters' internal and 'System Doesn't Matter' external, because the former says the rules themselves should provide the framework and the latter says a force outside the rules, almost invariably the GM, should do so. But neither of these have anything to do with the example you gave.

Where does the following description, which encapsulates what I usually look for in an "RPG," fall:

"A system for providing interesting tactical challenges during the course of a story whose genre is reinforced by the rules."

It seems to qualify as Neutral/Internal, since you give equal weight to both Practical mindsets, while focusing on how the rules interact with the genre.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The rules simulate a world, possibly but not necessarily our own, by providing an internally consistent physical framework."-- Immersive/External, as it mentions the rule framework, but the setting drives that framework, and not the other way around.

---------------------------------------------------

"The rules simulate a genre or style by rewarding actions and decisions consistent with that style, and punishing actions or decisions inconsistent with it."-- Tactical/Internal

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Rem's Law, which is in Remathilis' signature, is a cautionary statement about a pathological version of the Immersive/Neutral line of thinking.

As an online discussion of RPGs grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving video games approaches one.
corollary
Once such a comparison has been made, the thread is over, and whoever made the comparison has lost whatever argument he was attempting to make.
addendum
The words "video games" can be replaced by "roll-playing", "munchkinning", or any of several other phrases designed to prematurely drive the thread into the ground. Quirks's exception also applies here: if the individual "Godwinning" the thread is recognized as doing so, the thread is not over, but that individual's line of argument is still presumed to have been unsuccessful.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

It seems to qualify as Tactical/Internal.

I take it you mean my statement of what I'm looking for? What makes it 'Internal?' Because it's focused on the rules being responsible for reinforcing genre?

It's worth noting that, if so, the Internal/External axis is actually addressing an issue systems like the Threefold Model and GNS don't address at all. Both those systems, since they're designed to help design RPG rules, come from a basic 'system matters' standpoint.

I understand (or think I understand) that you're stepping back from the default stance of system matters, and I think that's a worthwhile endeavor in its own right - but I'm not sure how or if it's useful to combine that with another metric that analyzes rules or players relative to something internal to the system.

I would argue that there IS no continuum between Story, Challenge (more broadly applicable than 'Tactics') and Immersion - that they are entirely separate goals which are, especially at lower levels of interest, noninteractive unless the system is designed to make them so.

Between System Matters (Internal) and System Doesn't Matter (External), however, there IS a clear continuum because those stances are directly opposed.

 

[TheCrazyMuffinMan]

I take it you mean my statement of what I'm looking for? What makes it 'Internal?' Because it's focused on the rules being responsible for reinforcing genre?

It's worth noting that, if so, the Internal/External axis is actually addressing an issue systems like the Threefold Model and GNS don't address at all. Both those systems, since they're designed to help design RPG rules, come from a basic 'system matters' standpoint.

I understand (or think I understand) that you're stepping back from the default stance of system matters, and I think that's a worthwhile endeavor in its own right - but I'm not sure how or if it's useful to combine that with another metric that analyzes rules or players relative to something internal to the system.

I would argue that there IS no continuum between Story, Challenge (more broadly applicable than 'Tactics') and Immersion - that they are entirely separate goals which are, especially at lower levels of interest, noninteractive unless the system is designed to make them so.

Between System Matters (Internal) and System Doesn't Matter (External), however, there IS a clear continuum because those stances are directly opposed.

Again, very good point.

I then propose a new practical axis, if one is to be there at all: Rolist and Gamist. One is more interested in the RP aspect of it, the other more interested in the G. This distinction is summed up by Plot v. Mechanics, and supported by the very name of the game genre RPG.

Much wrangling about either the story or the immersion is Rolist in nature.
Much wrangling about either the rules or the rolls is Gamist in nature.

Hopefully this clarifies the practical axis.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Again, very good point.

I then propose a new practical axis, if one is to be there at all: Rolist and Gamist. One is more interested in the RP aspect of it, the other more interested in the G. Does this make more sense?

I don't really think so.

Gamist does. Rolist seems to be another word for 'Immersionist' and either doesn't cover either 'Narrativist' or 'Simulationist' (either type) or is too vague to be useful. It's also confusing because it could be construed as 'Roll-ist.'

To a system matters person, a good game will have a Gamist playing his role if that's what the game wants to encourage. If playing his role causes him to 'win,' that's how the Gamist will play it. The other way to look at it, however, is that a good game with a 'Rolist' stance is one where a 'Rolist' player is 'gaming the system' by virtue of doing what he already does.

Ultimately, the two are not really a continuum because they are not at opposite ends of a spectrum, and therefore can't meaningfully be laid out this way. A person may have a strong interest in one or the other without having strong opposition to the 'opposite,' for example. You can't place, say, Wargaming and Improv Theater on extreme ends of a spectrum - the two activities are not connected in any way, and RPGs aren't really a midpoint between them, despite the traditional RPG partaking of elements of both. It's very possible that a person will be in an improv theater group on Saturday afternoon, then play Warhammer at the hobby shop on Sunday, because the two interests are neither mutually exclusive nor really related to each other.

 

[TheCrazyMuffinMan]

I don't really think so.

Gamist does. Rolist seems to be another word for 'Immersionist' and either doesn't cover either 'Narrativist' or 'Simulationist' (either type) or is too vague to be useful. It's also confusing because it could be construed as 'Roll-ist.'

To a system matters person, a good game will have a Gamist playing his role if that's what the game wants to encourage. If playing his role causes him to 'win,' that's how the Gamist will play it. The other way to look at it, however, is that a good game with a 'Rolist' stance is one where a 'Rolist' player is 'gaming the system' by virtue of doing what he already does.

Ultimately, the two are not really a continuum because they are not at opposite ends of a spectrum, and therefore can't meaningfully be laid out this way. A person may have a strong interest in one or the other without having strong opposition to the 'opposite,' for example. You can't place, say, Wargaming and Improv Theater on extreme ends of a spectrum - the two activities are not connected in any way, and RPGs aren't really a midpoint between them, despite the traditional RPG partaking of elements of both. It's very possible that a person will be in an improv theater group on Saturday afternoon, then play Warhammer at the hobby shop on Sunday, because the two interests are neither mutually exclusive nor really related to each other.

Very well. If a two-dimensional axis cannot be effectively formed from this, then so be it. I'll stick with the tried and true in this case. Thank you for your constructive analysis !

Also, GNS is tri-furcated rather than bifurcated, and therefore can't be compared to an alignment at all. I was thinking narrativism would have been on the other end, but that leaves the poor Simulationist, who clearly doesn't have to be neutral to G or N, in the lurch.

I guess I can scrap this one until I find a better model to replace it, either an existing one, or my own.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Again, very good point.

I then propose a new practical axis, if one is to be there at all: Rolist and Gamist. One is more interested in the RP aspect of it, the other more interested in the G. This distinction is summed up by Plot v. Mechanics, and supported by the very name of the game genre RPG.

To address your edited post (please don't edit during an ongoing discussion like this, BTW; it makes it almost impossible for ME to follow, much less anyone not participating):

Plot v. Mechanics is not a "v."

If Mechanics and Plot butt heads, it's because of a conflict within the rules, and that conflict is not guaranteed to be there - Primetime Adventures, for example, makes the plot using the mechanics, and it is not alone in this respect. Many games other than D&D have mechanics that either interact with or directly attempt to enhance the plot, going back at least as far as the RP/background Flaws in 1e Champions. Note also that Immersionists are almost always fervently opposed to plot, including most of the mechanics used to create it. Plot v. x is really an Immersionist v. Narrativist punch-up more than Immersionist v. Gamist.

The name of the genre is disputed by Ryan Dancey with good reason: like the Blackadder definition of 'a,' it doesn't really mean anything - or at best has only a tenuous connection to the activity. (Note: I don't agree with Ryan's suggested replacement, but understand why he feels a replacement would be desirable.)