GNS - does one preclude another?

[nedjer]

If you read a bit further down, they also claim that this is an accurate representation of the population at large.

In other words, it won't answer each and every question, but it will answer the questions asked.

Only if the questions asked are based on how humans think and act instead of exactly how people don't act. You may be a calm storytelling bard one minute; then you eat two doughnuts, get a sugar rush and your whole style of play changes; then the sugar wears off an your system slumps for a bit; until your prospective girlfriend walks in and gives you a shoulder rub as she chooses the seat next to you . . . people are simply not fixed points.

 

[Umbran]

They admit themselves that its not a 'psionic mind scan' or whatever term they used.

Correct.

There are questions about the size of samples, the categories, the interpretation, . . . so yeah I question their data taking techniques and analysis at the methodological and philosophical levels. Fortunately, they do too

I wasn't clear. please allow me to restate - do you have reason to believe that their techniques were faulty in some way as to render their conclusions or interpretations outright erroneous?

Sure, one can ask questions about how things were done, and then quibble about the details. Statistcs gets realy twitchy if you try to be too specific with them. But they're talking there about the broad qualitative nature of the data and general segmentation, which usually is more a question of the base fundamentals, not the details and edges.

 

[Hussar]

Only if the questions asked are based on how humans think and act instead of exactly how people don't act. You may be a calm storytelling bard one minute; then you eat two doughnuts, get a sugar rush and your whole style of play changes; then the sugar wears off an your system slumps for a bit; until your prospective girlfriend walks in and gives you a shoulder rub as she chooses the seat next to you . . . people are simply not fixed points.

Oh yes of course. One should never mistake the size of the brush that's being painted with. The WOTC research should not be taken as a specific answer that covers everything, but a generalization over the averages.

I just think that the same should be applied to things like GNS as well. GNS will not be very useful in describing any specific instant, but, isn't all that bad at talking about general tendencies.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

RGFA threefold (GDS) provides a better starting point, IMO, because 1) there are fewer long essays and endless threads that people can link to rather than discussing the matter at hand, and 2) the definitions in the existing documents are looser and more common-sense.

Care to post these loose and common sense definitions? I've never heard of GDS.

 

[BenBrown]

From John Kim's RGFA FAQ

"three-fold": A model describing games as a balance of Dramatist,
Simulationist, and Gamist concerns -- i.e. someone might
describe themselves as mostly Gamist with some Dramatist
influence, but not very Simulationist. Also known as the
"triangle model" (for a pictorial diagram of this).
See part I of this FAQ for more information on this topic.

"dramatist": is the esthetic of games which try to make the
action into a satisfying and coherent storyline.


"gamist": is the esthetic of games which try to set up a fair
challenge for the *players* (as opposed to the PC's). The
challenges may be tactical combat, intellectual mysteries,
social manipulation, etc.

"simulationist": is the esthetic of games where effort is made
to not let meta-game concerns during play affect in-game
resolution of events. That is, a fully simulationist GM will
not fudge results to save PC's or to save her plot.

This obviously isn't all that's been written, (and I think the thing about fudging is not necessarily true, myself) but there's the definitions.

Perhaps "looser and more common sense" isn't necessarily the right definition. "clearer" definitely is.

 

[nedjer]

Oh yes of course. One should never mistake the size of the brush that's being painted with. The WOTC research should not be taken as a specific answer that covers everything, but a generalization over the averages.

I just think that the same should be applied to things like GNS as well. GNS will not be very useful in describing any specific instant, but, isn't all that bad at talking about general tendencies.

Generalisations are common sense and opinion. Nothing wrong with discussing them but there's no science involved. The categories in both cases are ill-defined and don't describe anything more than cardboard cutout/ stereotyped 'profiles' of tabletop rpg player 'types'.

No reason not to chat about them but they don't offer any understanding of how and why we play games. They're more like the type of quizzes in women's magazines, e.g. Beast or Babe: What Type of Valentine's Day Lover Are You?

 

[Umbran]

Generalisations are common sense and opinion. Nothing wrong with discussing them but there's no science involved.

That depends how you come by them. If you take survey data and do a segmentation analysis, there's some science involved. If you just come up with them off the top of your head, there's much less science involved.

No reason not to chat about them but they don't offer any understanding of how and why we play games.

Remember, "apple" is a generalization. But we can usefully talk about them and gain understanding about apples.

Generalizations offer some understanding - and the process of chatting even moreso. What we have to remember is that the "we" is in the very broad and general sense, not in the specific "we" (like "we here at EN World" or "when shall we three meet again?")

 

[pawsplay]

From John Kim's RGFA FAQ

"That is, a fully simulationist GM will
not fudge results to save PC's or to save her plot."

This obviously isn't all that's been written, (and I think the thing about fudging is not necessarily true, myself) but there's the definitions.

Perhaps "looser and more common sense" isn't necessarily the right definition. "clearer" definitely is.

Here is where we hit one of those logical potholes in GNS. What if I am simulating a genre in which PCs do not die trivially, ever? GI Joe (80s cartoon) the RPG, for instance.

 

[Umbran]

Here is where we hit one of those logical potholes in GNS. What if I am simulating a genre in which PCs do not die trivially, ever? GI Joe (80s cartoon) the RPG, for instance.

Well, presumably you'd want to alter your mechanic to reflect that, rather than have to frequently alter die rolls to achieve it.

 

[Ourph]

Here is where we hit one of those logical potholes in GNS. What if I am simulating a genre in which PCs do not die trivially, ever? GI Joe (80s cartoon) the RPG, for instance.

It doesn't seem to be a problem with the GNS model as much as it's a problem with the definitions provided not accurately reflecting the GNS model.

Any system mechanics (like rolling all dice in the open and not fudging, for example) are called Techniques in the Big Model. A Technique isn't inherently associated with any of the creative agendas.