An old fogey's take on the Threefold (long)
Larry D. Hols
The discussions of the Threefold and what should be in the FAQ lead me
to comment on the Threefold as I perceive it. I figure this can provide
a bit of thought fodder for a rewritten FAQ. If not, it at least
provides a description of one viewpoint on the matter for others to consider.
Through a Glass Darkly
As I remember it, the Threefold arose out of dissatisfaction with
responses to questions posted to the list. A poster would describe a
game situation and ask for feedback on what went wrong or how to
approach it. Much of the feedback, however, went astray in that the
respondent would criticise the approach rather than offer offer useful
feedback and the original poster would end up defending the approach
rather than getting useful advice. The problem in these situations, we
ferreted out, was that the poster had one intent in setting up the
situation and the respondents looked at the situation with different intent.
The general difference rule--that we each have different preferences in
games--kept getting lost in the shuffle and respondents kept attacking
approaches instead of offering constructive criticism and advice. The
Threefold arose out of a desire to illustrate the difference rule and
highlight some of the major differences. The idea being that a constant
reminder of the major differences will lead to discussions more
productive on actual game situations.
The Threefold would then allow a poster to offer a situation for
discussion with an explicit description of the approach and because all
participants are grounded in the Threefold, attacks on different intents
would largely disappear. A described situation then wouldn’t garner
responses of “but that makes for a bad story/world/game/whatever.”
Or, at least, that’s how I remember the currents leading to the
Threefold as flowing.
Drawing a Map
The problem then, became one of actually identifying the motivations
behind each situation--what the GM wanted to get out of it. (I say GM,
because most such situations were posted as GMing problems, it seemed.)
We needed some way to categorize the general intent behind decisions
leading to the situation and away from it.
So we looked at decisions we made in games and figured out why we
decided what we did, what we hoped to accomplish. We found that the core
things we considered could be grouped into a few large categories. We
called those most readily identified--and what seemed to encompass
almost everything--game, simulation, and drama.
The mapping process--putting the Threefold to work--for me was always a
descriptive exercise. I’d look at specific decisions I’d made, think of
all the things I considered when making that decision and noting the
intent behind the considerations. The intent behind the deciding factor
or a majority of considerations sharing a single intent would then
provide a data point (or points). Evaluating a wide variety of decisions
in play could then map my tendencies.
If I then post a message to the group asking for feedback, I could
explain the intent behind what I’d decided or what intent I wanted to
drive future decisions and get feedback supporting that intent.
Intent is King
Intent is what is important to the Threefold for that reason. We also
figured out that intent doesn’t map to outcome very well. First, a
decision made with a specific intent may be fully compatible with
different intents. Next, the outcome of a decision doesn’t indicate what
the motivation was behind it in many instances, if not most. There was
no way to predict what outcome was linked with what intent in far too
many instances for the Threefold to apply to both, so efforts to do so
would be doomed.
My favorite scenario illustrating the futility of prediction involved a
fantasy setting. A group of PCs flee a goblin horde, escaping out a side
tunnel and out into the hills. They come to a chasm barring their way,
with no immediately obvious ways to cross. They can’t linger long or
spend much time ranging alongside the chasm because the goblins are
likely to show up at any time.
The GM then introduces an ogre to the mix. “An ogre stomps through the
rocks nearby, bellowing a challenge to you. He’s carrying a large rock
in one hand, a large club in the other, and the gleam in his eye says
he’s not looking for a ball game. He’s long and dark and has his eyes on
you.”
Now, why did the GM decide to unleash the ogre? Perhaps it was to
provide a strong challenge to the players. Perhaps it was because the
setting called for an ogre at that place. Perhaps it was because the
ogre is involved in the story at hand. Perhaps it was because one of the
players had asked for an encounter with an ogre. That the ogre appeared
doesn’t explain the intent and could fit with all of those considered.
Big Trouble in Little Paradise
The Threefold neighborhood quickly got littered with debris.The first
sign of urban decay arrived via strong reductionism. The use of the
Threefold involves reducing many motivations into a few groups, so
perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised when some folks went too far in that direction.
All stories are not alike, although many folks acted as if their
dramatist/narrativist style were the only such style. Trying to offer up
discussion of a different dramatist/narrativist style would only draw
howls of protest (note: I've discussed Threefold issues elsewhere, so my
observations aren't limit to rgfa). Not a good thing to happen with a
tool intended to highlight the difference rule.
Likewise, those who wanted simulations were prone to assume that their
brand of simulation was the only brand of simulation. The same thing
affected those who self-identified as gamists.
Then there was the phenomenon of identifying with a single intent, a
corruption of the use of the Threefold. The Threefold was intended to
map tendencies, and by mapping all considerations for a decision
highlight that different things are considered by most GMs. To postulate
only a single intent behind all decisions, while possible, in most cases
is likely a failure to consider intent and considerations carefully.
That particular corruption led quickly to an “armed camps” approach to
discussion as folks tried to include or exclude themselves with regard
to groups in discussion. The idea of tendencies, weak or strong, being
mapped got lost in the shuffle.
There's also always been those trying to apply the Threefold to
outcomes. Sloppy use of it by those who should know better also involved
equating intent and outcome. I think the theory should have been called
the Threefold Intent theory to head this off.
Another corrupting influence appeared in the idea of tradeoffs between
intents. The idea that concentrating on a story meant the world
simulation or the game had to suffer didn’t follow from the use of the
Threefold at all, but a misapplication. The Threefold only mapped the
tendencies in decisions and what considerations proved most compelling;
it in no way indicated that some quality was lessened elsewhere.
It also turned exclusionary quickly. A sort of whites-only policy on the
front of the club. If somebody posited an intent that wasn’t one of the
Three, they were shunted aside. That then lead to some folks disavowing
the Threefold as useless because it didn’t include their intent.
Apparently, the name, which arose to reflect the first major groups of
intent, was too sacred to change to reflect later data.
Cheeseburgers in Paradise
I think it’s still possible to use the basic idea of mapping decision
intent and apply it to discussion and analysis of play. There are things
I’d change to keep it useful, obviously.
First, I’d run the notion that tradeoffs are required straight out of
town. I view it in this fashion: each GM has base standards for the
setting simulation, for the character simulation, for how the story
forms and develops, and so on. A decision to actively support a story
doesn’t involve suddenly dropping the standards for the setting. Each
decision has to align with the base standards the GM already has.
Thus, the complaints from many that “I don’t make tradeoffs” is entirely
accurate. Everything in their games meets their base standards and they
don’t lose anything by deciding based on a primary intent. An
examination of the actual mapping process I think was intended by the
theory shows that all considerations have driving intents and those
intents are likely to differ from consideration to consideration.
Nowhere does that require a decision based on one intent to subvert a
different intent.
I’d also take down the “whites only” sign and allow in other intentions.
Social intent drives lots of decisions, and I’d separate that from
meta-game issues such as a missing player. There are two more realms of
intent to be added.
So now it would be a Fivefold Intent Theory or Sixfold or whatever, or
perhaps simply Intent Theory. I’m certain the discussions to identify
realms of intent would prove interesting. I also think that each of the
existing realms can be examined and perhaps broken down into smaller,
more useful groups of intent--and those discussions would likewise be
interesting.
Is this a rejection of the Threefold? I don’t consider it so. I view it
as part of the process of refining the idea behind the Threefold and
updating it.
And that’s an old fogey’s take on the Threefold. I hope you enjoyed the ride.
Larry
Russell Wallace
<crkd...@carrollsweb.com> wrote:
>There's also always been those trying to apply the Threefold to
>outcomes. Sloppy use of it by those who should know better also involved
>equating intent and outcome. I think the theory should have been called
>the Threefold Intent theory to head this off.
That's an excellent idea! While I don't make much use of the Threefold
Intentions model these days (perhaps because nowadays I don't much
care about motives except when things go wrong), I'm going to call it
that from now on whenever I do refer to it. I'd encourage everyone
else to do likewise.
--
"Sore wa himitsu desu."
To reply by email, remove
the small snack from address.
http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace
Mary K. Kuhner
Larry D. Hols <crkd...@carrollsweb.com> wrote:
>Another corrupting influence appeared in the idea of tradeoffs between
>intents. The idea that concentrating on a story meant the world
>simulation or the game had to suffer didn’t follow from the use of the
>Threefold at all, but a misapplication. The Threefold only mapped the
>tendencies in decisions and what considerations proved most compelling;
>it in no way indicated that some quality was lessened elsewhere.
I wonder whether this will have the effect of backing one partisan
camp against the other.
I know that for me some intents are mutually exclusive and therefore
there *is* a tradeoff; if I want more of intent X (not result X!)
I must have less of intent Y. Similarly, as a player if I
form a theory that intent X is in effect, it reduces my sense of
intent Y, and if I value Y over X I'm disappointed.
This is deeply controversial in terms of game/world/drama intent,
because there are a lot of people who don't have such tradeoffs.
I don't believe that they are mistaken; I think it's really true
they don't. There's some fundamental style difference involved.
I think it's less controversial in terms of certain "social"
intents; many people might agree that an intent like "favor my
boyfriend" is objectionable in itself even if other intents are
also considered, and that the more the GM favors her boyfriend
the less she's honoring other intents.
>First, I’d run the notion that tradeoffs are required straight out of
>town. I view it in this fashion: each GM has base standards for the
>setting simulation, for the character simulation, for how the story
>forms and develops, and so on. A decision to actively support a story
>doesn’t involve suddenly dropping the standards for the setting. Each
>decision has to align with the base standards the GM already has.
To a considerable extent this would result in a model that
doesn't describe my games and isn't all that useful to me. When
I ask for advice I need to be able to say "I *cannot* make
certain decisions based on X; my game contract won't allow it"
or the advice-givers may waste a lot of time.
On the other hand, people like Neel and Jason have suffered a long
time with a model that doesn't work for them; maybe turn about
is fair play. I only wonder if you'll end up with a model that
doesn't work for anyone....You seem to have incorporated some
positions from each camp, and both camps may just reject your
model as a result.
Wouldn't it be more useful to say "Some people find that in their
games, different intents are at odds with one another; the more
effort they put into meeting one kind of intent the more they
lose in terms of others. Other people see their chosen
intents as mutually supportive rather than competitive. It's
important to recognize this difference"?
Mary Kuhner mkku...@eskimo.com
Jason Corley
> On the other hand, people like Neel and Jason have suffered a long
> time with a model that doesn't work for them; maybe turn about
> is fair play.
Can't speak for Neel, but my doctor says I'll live. :)
--
***************************************************************************
"You turn off the light and turn on the dark, you turn off the dark and
turn on the light --- positively marvillainous!" ---Krazy Kat, 1921
Jason D. Corley | End...@thecircus.org.uk | AIM: Concordancer
Wayne Shaw
K. Kuhner) wrote:
>On the other hand, people like Neel and Jason have suffered a long
>time with a model that doesn't work for them; maybe turn about
>is fair play. I only wonder if you'll end up with a model that
>doesn't work for anyone....You seem to have incorporated some
>positions from each camp, and both camps may just reject your
>model as a result.
Perhaps what we really need it more than one model; it works for
meteorologists.
Neelakantan Krishnaswami
> time with a model that doesn't work for them; maybe turn about is
> fair play.
Ick, no! The threefold, considered by itself, causes me no problems,
since, well, I don't have to use it. So to the extent that it does
help you and other people here it's a postive, useful, good thing.
However, what does cause me some aggravation is the social context in
which it becomes the sole frame of reference. Then I find I can't talk
about other things, because every debate becomes a debate about the
threefold. This is annoying. So Larry's attempt to come up with
another model is a good thing from my perspective, even though I am
unlikely to use it very much, simply because it widens the terms of
discourse. Think of this as a meta-difference rule, if you will.
--
Neel Krishnaswami
ne...@alum.mit.edu
Neelakantan Krishnaswami
> On 16 May 2003 00:16:38 GMT, mkku...@kingman.gs.washington.edu (Mary
> K. Kuhner) wrote:
>
> >On the other hand, people like Neel and Jason have suffered a long
> >time with a model that doesn't work for them; maybe turn about
> >is fair play. I only wonder if you'll end up with a model that
> >doesn't work for anyone....You seem to have incorporated some
> >positions from each camp, and both camps may just reject your
> >model as a result.
>
> meteorologists.
Welcome to my world. :)
--
Neel Krishnaswami
ne...@alum.mit.edu
Larry D. Hols
> I know that for me some intents are mutually exclusive and therefore
> there *is* a tradeoff; if I want more of intent X (not result X!)
> I must have less of intent Y. Similarly, as a player if I
> form a theory that intent X is in effect, it reduces my sense of
> intent Y, and if I value Y over X I'm disappointed.
Then you can offer up an antagonistic link between them.
> This is deeply controversial in terms of game/world/drama intent,
> because there are a lot of people who don't have such tradeoffs.
> I don't believe that they are mistaken; I think it's really true
> they don't. There's some fundamental style difference involved.
That's true: there is a fundamental difference. A theory that doesn't
allow for those differences is useless in a lot of discussions because
of that. Open the theory to allow for that differentiation and it
becomes useful in more discussions.
> I think it's less controversial in terms of certain "social"
> intents; many people might agree that an intent like "favor my
> boyfriend" is objectionable in itself even if other intents are
> also considered, and that the more the GM favors her boyfriend
> the less she's honoring other intents.
Perhaps. If all other considerations meet the basic standards, though,
what's lost?
> >First, I’d run the notion that tradeoffs are required straight out of
> To a considerable extent this would result in a model that
> doesn't describe my games and isn't all that useful to me. When
> I ask for advice I need to be able to say "I *cannot* make
> certain decisions based on X; my game contract won't allow it"
> or the advice-givers may waste a lot of time.
Those considerations aren't lost. You simply have to note them as
requirements. The theory simply says tradeoffs aren't inherent; it
doesn't say that they don't exist. If they exist, then they can be noted
as part of the description.
> On the other hand, people like Neel and Jason have suffered a long
> time with a model that doesn't work for them; maybe turn about
> is fair play. I only wonder if you'll end up with a model that
> doesn't work for anyone....You seem to have incorporated some
> positions from each camp, and both camps may just reject your
> model as a result.
I offered it up because I find it useful. I've read discussion where
tradeoffs aren't an issue and the Threefold didn't fit because of the
implicit tradeoff suggested by it. The idea of intent was important,
though, So, was the idea that everything requires a tradeoff necessary
to discuss intent? No.
That only becomes an issue where folks do find tradeoffs. Does a
flexible theory have to preclude tradeoffs? No. That simply becomes an
additional factor.
> Wouldn't it be more useful to say "Some people find that in their
> games, different intents are at odds with one another; the more
> effort they put into meeting one kind of intent the more they
> lose in terms of others. Other people see their chosen
> intents as mutually supportive rather than competitive. It's
> important to recognize this difference"?
The entire reasoning behind codifying the Threefold in the first place
was to make this sort of thing explicit. The Threefold supported only
the first part of this division; this alteration includes the second. It
makes explicit the difference between those who find tradeoffs and those
who don't.
Larry
Silvered Glass
<crkd...@carrollsweb.com> wrote:
<snip>
> I offered it up because I find it useful. I've read discussion where
>tradeoffs aren't an issue and the Threefold didn't fit because of the
>implicit tradeoff suggested by it. The idea of intent was important,
>though, So, was the idea that everything requires a tradeoff necessary
>to discuss intent? No.
What sort of case do you have in mind when you speak of intent being
important, but tradeoff not existing?
Brian Gleichman
news:3EC2E20F...@carrollsweb.com...
> The discussions of the Threefold and what should be in the FAQ lead me
> to comment on the Threefold as I perceive it. I figure this can provide
> a bit of thought fodder for a rewritten FAQ. If not, it at least
> provides a description of one viewpoint on the matter for others to
consider.
I really think this is a bad idea.
No matter how you slice it, any model by the simple nature of its word
choice is going to cause major problems. I hated the old FAQ in more than
one way for this very reason- it made it impossible to speak of my gaming
style or even to reference that of other regulars who I highly respected.
Everytime I turned around I'd be accused of doing things with an intent
completely alien to me, the same problem hit others squarely in the face as
well.
A brief conflict at the Forge showed that the matter was even worse than I
thought. The label the kept trying to stick on me kept changing- almost with
the wind (and none of them were acceptable to me). I did however come to
understand the dymanics of the problem.
A piece of advice before I leave the newsgroup again- let people define
their own game in their own words please. Take the extra time to dig the
information out of them. You may be suprised at the new and interesting
things you may turn up. And you won't make them bitter opponents along the
way.
Larry D. Hols
> > The discussions of the Threefold and what should be in the FAQ lead me
> > to comment on the Threefold as I perceive it. I figure this can provide
> > a bit of thought fodder for a rewritten FAQ. If not, it at least
> > provides a description of one viewpoint on the matter for others to
> consider.
>
> I really think this is a bad idea.
What's a bad idea? That the FAQ get rewritten, that I have an opinion
on the Threefold, or that I offer up my view of the matter?
> No matter how you slice it, any model by the simple nature of its word
> choice is going to cause major problems.
I disagree.
> I hated the old FAQ in more than
> one way for this very reason- it made it impossible to speak of my gaming
> style or even to reference that of other regulars who I highly respected.
> Everytime I turned around I'd be accused of doing things with an intent
> completely alien to me, the same problem hit others squarely in the face as
> well.
Did you ever explain your intent in detail?
> A piece of advice before I leave the newsgroup again- let people define
> their own game in their own words please.
You should have been pleased to note, then, that I expressly opened the
theory up to other intentions than those currently explained.
> Take the extra time to dig the
> information out of them. You may be suprised at the new and interesting
> things you may turn up. And you won't make them bitter opponents along the
> way.
I suppose you also noted that I use Intention theory on my own as an
aid to analyzing what other people say. I don't know why you supposed
that I would automatically try to force somebody else to use the same
theory to describe their own play. I can use it myself without ever
mentioning that fact, just as a way to help sort matters out for me.
And the assumption that I (speaking as a generic representative of
those who find it useful) will automatically make bitter enemies of
those who disagree with me is quite suspect, too. I imagine such
assumptions play a much greater role in creating discord than
disagreeing over the utility of a given theory.
Larry
Larry D. Hols
> What sort of case do you have in mind when you speak of intent being
> important, but tradeoff not existing?
No specifics, actually. I've noted enough statements to that effect
over time that I figure there's something to it. I also note that most
of the time when I GM, there's no noticeable tradeoff effect when I make decisions.
Larry
Warren J. Dew
No matter how you slice it, any model by the simple nature
of its word choice is going to cause major problems.
Larry D. Hols posts:
I disagree.
Knowing Brian's penchant for empiricism, I'd guess that his opinion that
models' inherent word choices cause problems is based on quite a bit of
evidence and personal experience. If you are to usefully disagree, how about
telling us what makes you think otherwise?
Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software
Brian Gleichman
> What's a bad idea? That the FAQ get rewritten, that I have an opinion
> on the Threefold, or that I offer up my view of the matter?
Tell you what, never mind. Forget that I said anything.
Brian Gleichman
"Warren J. Dew" <psych...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030516214407...@mb-m20.aol.com...
> Knowing Brian's penchant for empiricism, I'd guess that his opinion that
> models' inherent word choices cause problems is based on quite a bit of
> evidence and personal experience.
That's putting it lightly to say the least.
But I think that's just about all there is to say about the subject. The
reaction I got indicates to me that the subject is closed- if it was every
open in the first place.
Larry D. Hols
> No matter how you slice it, any model by the simple nature
> of its word choice is going to cause major problems.
>
> I disagree.
>
> Knowing Brian's penchant for empiricism, I'd guess that his opinion that
> models' inherent word choices cause problems is based on quite a bit of
> evidence and personal experience. If you are to usefully disagree, how about
> telling us what makes you think otherwise?
I reject the universal scope of the assertion, solely because it is
intended as a universal. A given model's word choice may or may not
cause major problems. Examination of each is necessary to adjudge those
that do and those that don't.
I also find it interesting that you assume Brian has experience and
that someone else doesn't. I wager that can cause problems, too. Very
interesting.
Larry
Joachim Schipper
news:Vugxa.869920$F1.109347@sccrnsc04...
Umm... is this the way regulars here are supposed to get along?
I am not in any way experienced on this forum, but I do note that many
people - and Brian Gleichmann is not the first, and probably not the last
either - spend more time disagreeing than discussing. I also note that one
should tread very carefully here, as regulars have long-standing fueds and
newbies can easily tread on flame-charred ground without knowing so.
While I've no special rights here, could you *please* stop arguing about
these things and go about spawning useful theories? All of you? That is a
tad more interesting...
I'll have some free time after my exams, and I'll try to cook up something
useful, in particular about chargen systems, if I can find something along
that lines. Any other interesting bits would be appreciated.
Joachim
---
My outgoing mail is checked for viruses.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.481 / Virus Database: 277 - Release Date: 13-5-03
Robert Scott Clark
wrote in news:3ec605e8$0$76760$1b62...@news.wanadoo.nl:
> I am not in any way experienced on this forum, but I do note that many
> people - and Brian Gleichmann is not the first, and probably not the
> last either - spend more time disagreeing than discussing.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Charlton Wilbur
<_remove.this.to.resp...@wanadoo.nl> writes:
> Umm... is this the way regulars here are supposed to get along?
It's the way things often happen, when reasonable people have spent
several years trying to get along with unreasonable ones.
> I am not in any way experienced on this forum, but I do note that
> many people - and Brian Gleichmann is not the first, and probably
> not the last either - spend more time disagreeing than discussing.
The fundamental point is that it's entirely possible to *disagree*
without being *disagreeable.* Some people are here to discuss, and for
that, civil disagreement is the most beneficial situation.
The problem is, it's very easy for someone who's more interested in
being disruptive to hurt the atmosphere of the group. It's much more
difficult to maintain the atmosphere of the group than it is to
destroy it, in fact. This is the fundamental problem of unmoderated Usenet.
Charlton
Brian Gleichman
"Joachim Schipper" <_remove.this.to.resp...@wanadoo.nl>
wrote in message news:3ec605e8$0$76760$1b62...@news.wanadoo.nl...
> Umm... is this the way regulars here are supposed to get along?
>
> I am not in any way experienced on this forum, but I do note that many
> people - and Brian Gleichmann is not the first, and probably not the last
> either - spend more time disagreeing than discussing.
I'm not a regular, and I don't know the person I replying to (nor do I know
you) so I don't credit either with regular status.
Even so, your statement is rather foolish on the face of it. I have nothing
to learn from those I agree with although it is fun to talk them. Generally
the interesting things from those I disagree with- but yet are able to carry
on a reason conversation. So of course many of my exchanges with be with
people I 'agree' with.
It's rather plain the Larry D. Hols is not one of those, so I existed the
conversation inside of wasting my time and that of the group. Beside, I
don't intend to hang around long enough to debate the issue anyway.
That's as good as it get on the Joachim. Rather then jumping on me for
sparing the group a flamewar, I suggest you develop your own skills in avoid
trying to restart one.
> While I've no special rights here, could you *please* stop arguing about
> these things and go about spawning useful theories? All of you? That is a
> tad more interesting...
I'd rather hear more about what people are doing in their games and what
their view of that is myself. I've found that theories are almost never
useful. In fact, I've found Threefold like concepts to be nothing but
harmful in the extreme. I invite anyone who likes such constructions to go
to www.indie-rpgs.com- it's your kind of place and it's much better for one
to go there then and live in it then try and change every other place into
something like it.
But that's just my opinion. I'm not a regular and will be leaving as soon as
I finish some exchanges I'm in. You guys do what you want.
Brian Gleichman
> I reject the universal scope of the assertion, solely because it is
> intended as a universal. A given model's word choice may or may not
> cause major problems. Examination of each is necessary to adjudge those
> that do and those that don't.
Ah the wild call of the modern intellectual who believes that of course one
can change human nature of only one communications properly. The
'communicatie properly' of course meaning that everything comes to think and
talk like them.
Sigh, such a common creature found in today's wilderness. Due to it's
destructive nature it's been classified as vermin by wildlife specialists.
It will likely inherent the earth before it succeeds in destroying it...
PS: I really should have posted that, but what the heck. Couldn't resist.
Russell Wallace
<bglei...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>But that's just my opinion. I'm not a regular and will be leaving as soon as
>I finish some exchanges I'm in. You guys do what you want.
*waves* Long time no see! Sorry to see you're departing again so soon;
I remember some of your posts from the old days were interesting. Hope
your games go well.
Joachim Schipper
You are offended, I see. No offence was meant, really, and it was aimed at
many more people than yourself. Excuse me if I did offend you.
I also see that you're not in the least interested in discussing this - and
neither am I - so I'll leave it at this.