More General Threefold FAQ
John Kim
havebeen very neglectful as keeper of the FAQ here. A lion's share of
discussion has been devoted to the Threefold Model of Dramatist/Gamist/
Simulationist over the last year, and my FAQ only has a brief mention
of it and short definitions of the types.
Thus, before going into greater detail about the split
between believable dramatist and simulationist, I wanted to present
a more general FAQ introducing the Threefold. Now, obviously
there are critics of the distinction of dramatist and simulationist.
The purpose of a FAQ is not
Thus, even if you disagree with it, I think it is important to
explain what it is trying to say.
------------------------------(cut here)----------------------------------
The rec.games.frp.advocacy FAQ
==============================
PART I.5?: The Threefold Model
1) What is the Threefold Model?
2) Which one am I? A Dramatist, a Gamist, or a Simulationist?
3) Stop beating around the bush!! What is it already?
4) I produce stories that are believable. Aren't my games both
fully dramatist and fully simulationist?
5) So simulationism is a gritty realistic game full of rules-lawyers
arguing over ballistics, and dramatism is ham actors playing
through arty nonsense?
6) I don't think I'm either dramatist or simulationist. I like
gaming, however, so I must be gamist, right?
(Part II of this FAQ will deal with "plot", and Part III will deal
with "diceless roleplaying")
Copies of this FAQ can be found on the WWW at:
"http://www-e815.fnal.gov/~jhkim/rpg/styles.html" (not yet!)
1) What is the Threefold Model?
The Threefold Model is one way grouping the innumerable aspects of
RPG group contracts into logical categories. This includes every facet
of how the game is played: not just the mechanical rules, but also how
scenarios are constructed, what sort of behavior is expected of PCs,
how actions not covered by the rules are resolved, allowance of outside
distractions, and so forth. The categories are referred to as
Dramatist, Gamist, and Simulationist.
An important part of the model is recognizing that there are
valid different goals for gaming. Many models of RPGs or gamers tend
to have derogatory categories of "munchkin," "poseur," "rules lawyer,"
etc. which are contrasted with "true role-players". This model is
intended to promote an understanding of diverse interests, and to
help gamers better express their differences.
There are critics of this model, who claim that the
distinctions it draws are not useful or representative. However,
it exists and is talked about on this forum, so new reader should
at least be informed about it.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
2) Which one am I? A Dramatist, a Gamist, or a Simulationist?
Most likely, none of the above. Your individual style cannot be
pidgeonholed into a single word. More to the point, you probably
use a mix of different techniques, and work towards more than one
goal. You may tend more towards one corner of the triangle, but
you probably value a mix.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
3) Stop beating around the bush!! What is it already?
OK, here is the short definitions:
"dramatist": is the style which values making the in-game action
into a satisfying and coherent storyline. Of course, there are
different standards for "satisfying" -- but the point is that it
is the resulting storyline that is important.
"gamist": is the style which values setting up a fair challenge for
the *players* (as opposed to the PC's). The challenges may be
tactical combat, intellectual mysteries, politics, or anything
else. The players will try to solve the problems they are
presented with, and in turn the GM will make these challenges
solvable if they act intelligently within the contract.
"simulationist": is the style which values not allowing meta-game
concerns during play to affect in-game resolution of events.
Thus, a fully simulationist GM will not fudge results to save
PC's or to save her plot, or even change facts unknown to the
players. Such a GM may make meta-game decisions like who is
playing which character, when to break for dinner, whether or
not to play out a long conversation word for word, etc. -- just
so long as she tries to resolve it as what would "really" happen.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
4) I produce stories that are believable. Aren't my games both
fully dramatist and fully simulationist?
Simulationism is not defined in terms of believability, it is
defined in terms of method. For example, as GM you may create
an adventurer believable scenes and characters, and a very
simulationist player might not know that you used dramatist
techniques. However, if that player finds out that you used
meta-game manipulation to produce those results, she will feel
cheated. You violated her preferred contract.
Rightly or wrongly, a pure simulationist isn't simply trying to
produce a story that is believable. He is trying to actually
find out what would "really" happen by modelling what is in the
game world. Of course, it is impossible to perfectly simulate
this, but he finds interest and value in the attempt.
For example, say the PCs are know that a target is hiding in one
of eight hotels, but they cannot find out which except by searching
them. A dramatist GM might decide based on pacing to have the
second hotel they search be the right one, so that the game doesn't
drag as they go through one after the other. This is perfectly
believable, but a pure simulationist GM will refuse to do this.
Most likely, she will decide on one in advance and let the players
choose what order they search in. The players might happen on it
right off the bat, or they might have to wade through seven others.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
5) So simulationism is a gritty realistic game full of rules-lawyers
arguing over ballistics, and dramatism is ham actors playing
through arty nonsense?
No, those are rabid stereotypes. Simulationism by definition is
going to try to be "realistic" within the game-world, although it
may have natural laws different than the real world. However,
the players are not neccessarily obsessed with rules or physics.
A simulationist game could just as well focus on political
discussion between important figures, or rebels fighting a
propaganda war to win over the masses.
A dramatist could be into pulp action-adventure featuring a
speech-spouting strong-jawed hero. However, he could also be
into deep, true-to-life characters and believable situations.
Dramatic methods can also be used for these as well. For
example, a dramatist GM could
[...insert example here...]
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
6) I don't think I'm either dramatist or simulationist. I like
gaming, however, so I must be gamist, right?
Gamist was *not* intended as a catch-all for anything that isn't
included in the other two categories. It is specifically about
setting up fair challenges for the players to face. The Threefold
is not intended as a be-all and end-all of gaming, nor is it
neccessarily complete. Several people suggested a fourth group
of styles, which was "Social". However, discussion died down as
there was little consensus about what that meant in contrast to
the other styles.
Many aspects of gaming are not covered by the Threefold. For
example, any of the three can vary from "Light" to "Serious".
"Beer-and-pretzels" usually refers to Gamist dungeon-crawls, say,
where you are trying to beat the monsters. However, there are
also non-serious dramatists, say who run cheesy superhero plots
where the hero always beats the villian. Note that this is
not gamist since there is no challenge to it -- the hero always
wins, it's just fun seeing how she does it.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Brian Gleichman
> Thus, before going into greater detail about the split
>between believable dramatist and simulationist, I wanted to present
>a more general FAQ introducing the Threefold.
This is a good idea. We've needed it for quite a while.
> Now, obviously
>there are critics of the distinction of dramatist and simulationist.
>The purpose of a FAQ is not
>Thus, even if you disagree with it, I think it is important to
>explain what it is trying to say.
I have no problem with dramatist and simulationist. But I do have major
issues with the Gamist definition (see other thread). What you have here
however seems to fit what has been discussed before and that is the point
afterall.
Psychohist
I think this rewrite is a significant improvement, reflecting better
understanding of the model as time has passed. I do have a few specific
suggestions, though:
The Threefold Model is one way grouping the innumerable
aspects of RPG group contracts into logical categories.
This seems to me to make it sound a bit too all encompassing; there are also
innumerable aspects of group contracts that aren't covered in the threefold,
such as script immunity and gaming genre. How about "many aspects"?
Such a GM may make meta-game decisions like who is
playing which character, when to break for dinner,
whether or not to play out a long conversation word
for word, etc. -- just so long as she tries to resolve
it as what would "really" happen.
This was really unclear to me - how does one resolve when to break for dinner
as it would "really" happen? I'd substitute something like:
Such a GM may take metagame considerations into account
when making metagame decisions like who is to
play which character, when to break for dinner, and
whether to abstract a detailed conversation, so long as
these considerations do not affect what is considered
to have happened in the game world.
--
Several people suggested a fourth group of styles, which
was "Social". However, discussion died down as there
was little consensus about what that meant in contrast to
the other styles.
Or even whether one could even discuss it on the same level.
Warren Dew
Mary K. Kuhner
John Kim <jh...@cosmic.ps.uci.edu> wrote:
Sorry for nitpicks here, but we'll be living with this document for
a long time!
>1) What is the Threefold Model?
> The Threefold Model is one way grouping the innumerable aspects of
^of
>RPG group contracts into logical categories. This includes every facet
>of how the game is played: not just the mechanical rules, but also how
>scenarios are constructed, what sort of behavior is expected of PCs,
>how actions not covered by the rules are resolved, allowance of outside
>distractions, and so forth. The categories are referred to as
>Dramatist, Gamist, and Simulationist.
I'm really dubious about "includes every facet of how the game is played"
since we frequently come back to the statement "That's not covered by
the Threefold" for decisions such as "What rules set do we use?" "Who
is going to play in this game?" "When do we break for dinner?" and so
forth.
I would say that there is general consensus that resolution of in-game
events is covered by the Threefold. There is considerable but not
unanimous agreement that scenario design is covered. There's some
argument over whether the Threefold covers *player* styles, though I
personally think it does a pretty good job. There seems to be general
agreement that some metagame issues are outside the Threefold, though
that might change if the Social category were added. As you note
yourself, "which player is playing this character?" is not a question the
Threefold says much, if anything, about.
> An important part of the model is recognizing that there are
>valid different goals for gaming. Many models of RPGs or gamers tend
>to have derogatory categories of "munchkin," "poseur," "rules lawyer,"
>etc. which are contrasted with "true role-players". This model is
>intended to promote an understanding of diverse interests, and to
>help gamers better express their differences.
I think this could even be phrased a bit more strongly: maybe a clause
at the end "; it is not meant to single out one style as better or
worse than another."
> "simulationist": is the style which values not allowing meta-game
> concerns during play to affect in-game resolution of events.
> Thus, a fully simulationist GM will not fudge results to save
> PC's or to save her plot, or even change facts unknown to the
> players. Such a GM may make meta-game decisions like who is
> playing which character, when to break for dinner, whether or
> not to play out a long conversation word for word, etc. -- just
> so long as she tries to resolve it as what would "really" happen.
This is an overly negative description, I think, in contrast to the
positive descriptions of the other two--I don't mean that it's derogatory,
but that it talks about what simulationists don't do without ever giving
a statement of what they do. I know that's hard--"don't use metagame
reasoning" is very fundamental--but how about "is the style which bases
in-game resolution of events solely on game-world considerations, without
allowing any meta-game concerns to affect the decision."
The "it" in the final sentence is disconnected from its referent, and
in general I'd prefer:
"Such a GM may use meta-game considerations to decide meta-game issues
like who is playing which character, whether to play out a conversation
word for word, and so forth, but she will determine the actual events
occuring in the game-world without reference to the meta-game."
> Simulationism is not defined in terms of believability, it is
> defined in terms of method. For example, as GM you may create
> an adventurer believable scenes and characters, and a very
> simulationist player might not know that you used dramatist
> techniques. However, if that player finds out that you used
> meta-game manipulation to produce those results, she will feel
> cheated. You violated her preferred contract.
This could be clearer, since this is a key point of dissension.
"You as GM could create an adventure with believable scenes and characters,
and a storyline flowing naturally out of them. A very simulationist player
might not notice that you constructed the gameworld events partly for the
sake of making a good story. However, if she found out, she would feel
cheated: you would have violated her preferred contract."
> A dramatist could be into pulp action-adventure featuring a
> speech-spouting strong-jawed hero. However, he could also be
> into deep, true-to-life characters and believable situations.
> Dramatic methods can also be used for these as well. For
> example, a dramatist GM could
> [...insert example here...]
How about: a dramatist GM is trying to make a good story, but that could
be any kind of good story, depending on his tastes--an exciting story,
a moving story, a funny story, a profound story, a silly story. Different
dramatist GMs will use quite different story-crafting techniques depending
on their goals.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
John Kim
model. I have taken comments into account as well as throwing in
my own modifications.
In reply to specific comments, the last sentence of the
capsule definition of "simulationism" did have problems. However,
I wanted to retain the phrase of "based on what would _really_
happen", in order to have something that was more intuitive than
the high-falootin' theoretical jargon.
[...long pause...]
Alright, so it's a lost cause! Sue me! @-)
I still need some work on question (6). Basically, I
want the answer to try to give short examples of all three types
in an effort to break common stereotypes. I think there needs
to be more graphic demonstrations of how games can vary widely
even within a single category.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
The rec.games.frp.advocacy FAQ
==============================
PART I.5?: The Threefold Model
1) What is the Threefold Model?
2) Which one am I? A Dramatist, a Gamist, or a Simulationist?
3) Stop beating around the bush!! What is it already?
4) Don't those categories overlap?
5) But I produce stories that are *always* believable. Aren't my
games both fully dramatist and fully simulationist?
6) So dramatism is ham actors playing through arty nonsense,
gamism is munchkins who want to beat the GM, and simulationism
is rules-lawyers who argue over ballistics?
7) I don't think I'm either dramatist or simulationist. I like
gaming, though, so I must be gamist, right?
(Part II of this FAQ will deal with "plot", and Part III will deal
with "diceless roleplaying")
Copies of this FAQ can be found on the WWW at:
"http://www-e815.fnal.gov/~jhkim/rpg/styles.html" (not yet!)
1) What is the Threefold Model?
The Threefold Model is one way of grouping many aspects of
group contracts into logical categories. Full group contract
includes every facet of how the game is played: not just the
mechanical rules, but also how scenarios are constructed, what
sort of behavior is expected of PCs, how actions not covered by
the rules are resolved, allowance of outside distractions, and
so forth. The Threefold divides up many of these into categories
known as Dramatist, Gamist, and Simulationist.
An important part of the model is recognizing that there are
valid different goals for gaming. Many models of RPGs or gamers
tend to have derogatory categories of "munchkin," "poseur," "rules
lawyer," etc. which are contrasted with "true role-players". The
Threefold model is intended to promote an understanding of diverse
interests; it is not meant to single out one style as better or
worse than another.
Role-playing games don't simply classify into good and bad.
The exact same game which one player enjoys, another might dislike.
Rather than say that one or the other has bad taste, it is more
useful to try to make sense of patterns of what different players
and GMs enjoy.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
2) Which one am I? A Dramatist, a Gamist, or a Simulationist?
Most likely, none of the above. Your individual style cannot
be pidgeonholed into a single word. More to the point, you probably
use a mix of different techniques, and work towards more than one
goal. You may tend more towards one corner of the triangle, but
you probably value a mix.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
3) Stop beating around the bush!! What is it already?
OK, here is the short definitions:
"dramatist": is the style which values how well the in-game action
creates a satisfying storyline. Different kinds of stories
may be viewed as satisfying, depending on individual tastes,
varying from fanciful pulp action to believable character
drama. It is the end result of the story which is
important.
"gamist": is the style which values setting up a fair challenge for
the *players* (as opposed to the PC's). The challenges may be
tactical combat, intellectual mysteries, politics, or anything
else. The players will try to solve the problems they are
presented with, and in turn the GM will make these challenges
solvable if they act intelligently within the contract.
"simulationist": is the style which values resolving in-game
events based solely on game-world considerations, without
allowing any meta-game concerns to affect the decision.
Thus, a fully simulationist GM will not fudge results to save
PC's or to save her plot, or even change facts unknown to the
players. Such a GM may use meta-game considerations to decide
meta-game issues like who is playing which character, whether
to play out a conversation word for word, and so forth, but
she will resolve actual in-game events based on what would
_really_ happen.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
4) Don't those categories overlap?
True, these goals are not *constantly* at odds. On the
short term, a given conflict might happen to be both a fair
challenge and realistically resolved. However, every game
will have problems, including undramatic bits, unrealistic
bits, and unbalanced bits. The Threefold asks about how much
comparative effort you put into solving these.
Even a perfectly simulationist or gamist campaign will have
dramatic bits in them. After all, people will tell stories
about things that happened to them in real life, or even about
what happened in a chess game they were playing. Similarly, a
dramatist campaign will have some conflicts that are a fair
challenge for the players, and some events that are realistic.
But an equally-skilled gamist GM, who doesn't put effort into
the quality of the story, will be able to make better
challenges. Similarly, a simulationist GM, who focusses only
on in-game resolutions, will be able to make things more
"realistic" for that game-world.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
5) But I produce stories that are *always* believable. Aren't my
games both fully dramatist and fully simulationist?
Simulationism is not defined in terms of believability, it
is defined in terms of method. For example, you as GM you could
have a storyline in mind, and set up the background and characters
so well that during the game, the storyline occurs without your
having to noticably fudge. A very simulationist player might not
notice that you constructed the events to produce that story.
However, if she found out, she would feel cheated: you would
have violated her preferred contract.
Rightly or wrongly, a pure simulationist isn't simply trying
to produce a story that is believable. He is trying to actually
find out what would "really" happen by modelling what is in the
game world. Of course, it is impossible to perfectly simulate
this, but he finds interest and value in the attempt.
For example, say the PCs are know that a target is hiding in one
of eight hotels, but they cannot find out which except by searching
them. A dramatist GM might decide based on pacing to have the
second hotel they search be the right one, so that the game doesn't
drag as they go through one after the other. This is perfectly
believable, but a pure simulationist GM will refuse to do this.
Most likely, she will decide on one in advance and let the players
choose what order they search in. The players might find it
immediately, or they might have to wade through seven others.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
6) So dramatism is ham actors playing through arty nonsense,
gamism is munchkins who want to beat the GM, and simulationism
is rules-lawyers who argue over ballistics?
No, those are rabid stereotypes. Even if the stereotypes
have some truth to them, the Threefold is not about just the
lowest common denominator. There are good and bad examples of
each type of game.
A pure dramatist might run a gritty, low-key drama where
the PCs are true-to-life characters who perhaps concentrate on
their work. In this case, the dramatic story might be framed
around how they relate to each other and the tension produced.
[...more examples needed...]
A gamist could run a mystery game where the PCs are
challenged to find the killer based not just on physical clues,
but also on the personalities and motivations of the suspects.
Note that this is similar on the surface to a dramatic story,
but the emphasis is on making it solvable yet challenging to
the players. A purely dramatist mystery might make a better
story, but a purely gamist mystery will be a fairer test of
the player's wits.
Simulationism by definition is going to try to be "realistic"
within the game-world, although it may have natural laws different
than the real world. However, the players are not neccessarily
obsessed with rules or physics. A simulationist game could just
as well focus on political discussion between important figures,
or rebels fighting a propaganda war to win over the masses.
Several posters have run diceless simulationist games.
A purely simulationist mystery would start with determining
how the crime was carried out based only on in-game factors.
The logical consequences of this might mean that the players can
solve it easily, or that they can't solve it at all, or that
they can only solve it by turning it over other authorities. An
absolutely pure simulationist GM won't go back and change things
to make the mystery work better for the PCs.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
7) I don't think I'm either dramatist or simulationist. I like
gaming, though, so I must be gamist, right?
Gamist was *not* intended as a catch-all for anything that
isn't included in the other two categories. It is specifically
about setting up fair challenges for the players to face. The
Threefold is not intended as a be-all and end-all of gaming, nor
is it neccessarily complete. Several people suggested a fourth
group of styles, which was "Social". However, discussion died
down as there was no consensus about what that meant in contrast
to the other styles, or even whether one could even discuss it on
the same level.
Many aspects of gaming are not covered by the Threefold. For
Psychohist
happen" phrasing in the definition of simulationism, though; I think it will be
more misunderstood than understood. Most people think that what would "really"
happen is the same as what does, eventually, "actually" happen - which doesn't
distinguish between the three corners of the triangle, since all games do
achieve resolution of in game events, one way or another.
The use of "really" later on, in trying to distinguish between plausibility and
simulation, is better; would that be sufficient for you?
I agree that short examples would help a lot. Here's one, albeit incomplete:
Story oriented gamesmaster: storyteller
Game oriented gamesmaster: referee
World oriented gamesmaster: ?
Warren Dew
Eduard W. Lohmann
<snip>
> Game oriented gamesmaster: referee
> World oriented gamesmaster: ?
>
> Warren Dew
Worldguide?
I am also missing a picture of the triangle. It could speed up
understanding.
I'm not a strong simulationist, but I miss the world orientation
as a description of it.
--
* Eduard W. Lohmann *
* loh...@wins.uva.nl *
* http://gene.wins.uva.nl/~lohmann/index.html *
Ross Smith
>
> I agree that short examples would help a lot. Here's one, albeit incomplete:
>
> Game oriented gamesmaster: referee
> World oriented gamesmaster: ?
What about "creator"? (In the narrow creation-of-the-world sense, not
the wider creative-artist sense.)
--
Ross Smith ....................................... Auckland, New Zealand
<mailto:r-s...@ihug.co.nz> ........ <http://crash.ihug.co.nz/~r-smith/>
"Oh boy! Violence! Can't wait! Hey, sex is everywhere, but good
violence is hard to find!" -- Michael Thompson
Psychohist
psych...@aol.com (Psychohist) writes:
> Story oriented gamesmaster: storyteller
> Game oriented gamesmaster: referee
> World oriented gamesmaster: ?
Creator?
I'll get objections now, because dramatists and simulationists
also create, but it seems to me that a world-oriented GM is
primarily focussed on the creation of the world with which the
players interact, wheras story- and game- oriented GMs are
focussed more on the shape of the resulting interactions.
Barbara
I guess I want something less inclusive.
I find it hard to imagine a story oriented gamesmaster who would consider
himself a 'referee', or a game oriented gamesmaster who would consider himself
a 'story teller'. I personally think these are both poor descriptions of what
I do as a world oriented gamesmaster, and I'd be a bit upset if someone applied
these titles to me.
So what I'm looking for, I guess, is a succinct term that both story oriented
and game oriented gamemasters would react to with a resounding "I'm definitely
not that".
Warren
Michael C. Martin
>Barbara Robson posts:
> psych...@aol.com (Psychohist) writes:
> > Story oriented gamesmaster: storyteller
> > Game oriented gamesmaster: referee
> > World oriented gamesmaster: ?
> Creator?
>I guess I want something less inclusive.
[snip]
>So what I'm looking for, I guess, is a succinct term that both story oriented
>and game oriented gamemasters would react to with a resounding "I'm definitely
>not that".
Kind of obvious, but...
How about "simulator?"
---
Michael Martin: mcma...@uclink4.berkeley.edu
http://www-inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~mcmartin/
"Trouble is synonymous with being a metabolizing entity."
--The Niss Machine, "Infinity's Shore"
Irina Rempt
> >So what I'm looking for, I guess, is a succinct term that both story oriented
> >and game oriented gamemasters would react to with a resounding "I'm definitely
> >not that".
> Kind of obvious, but...
> How about "simulator?"
I go with Eduard's "world guide" (he's one of my players, but that
isn't the reason). I'm obviously a world-oriented GM, but I don't feel
that I'm "simulating" anything - I'm not a computer program! What I do
is much more like giving the characters a guided tour of the world, and
draw their attention to events that they may want to act on.
Irina
--
ir...@rempt.xs4all.nl http://www.xs4all.nl/~bsarempt/irina/frontpage.html
-------------------- Lingua Latina Occasionibus Omnibus --------------------
VII. "Heu! Tintinnuntius meus sonat!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Bowers
>
> Michael C. Martin (mcma...@uclink4.berkeley.edu) wrote:
>
> > >So what I'm looking for, I guess, is a succinct term that both story oriented
> > >and game oriented gamemasters would react to with a resounding "I'm definitely
> > >not that".
>
> > Kind of obvious, but...
>
> > How about "simulator?"
>
Judge? Arbiter?
Jeff Bowers
be like just so it's clear what the driving issues are and so it's
obvious that no one plays an absolute game of any type.
1 Dramatism: A pure dramatist game is one where a "good story" is such
an overriding concern that every decision is made to enhance the story.
Hence, the plot is thoroughly planned to fit dramatic structure, and in
the game all player and GM decisions are made to fit it. No mechanics
are needed, and while actions should still be plausible, no actions are
done that would make a poorer story. Essentially in a pure dramatist
game the GM could create a script and the players and the GM could read
the script, and perhaps ad-lib some parts, though only if they knew the
complete script and were sure that the parts they introduced would make
a better story.
2 Simulationism: A pure simulationist game is one where fidelity to a
game world is such an overriding concern that nothing is done which
would be contrary that ideal. There is no "plot" although interesting
things happen, and while the PC's may have a 0% chance to accomplish
their goals, they are free to do something else or die trying. A pure
simulationist game could easily include strict mechanics for behavior
and personality such that any decision the characters must make is made
by the dice, or the GM's idea of what that character would do. And
finally, in a pure simulationist game, the GM is obligated to have a new
volcano form under the feet of the PC's during a climactic confrontation
with their arch-enemy if that's what the roll on the Geologic Event
Table says.
3 Gamism: I'm not sure what to put here since gamism seems a little
less defined, and it's always harder to point out the absurdity of your
own corner anyway. :)
However, I don't think it should be "chess" unless you really make a
case that it's the absolute extreme of the "gamism" ethic when applied
to characters interacting in a world.
I want to be clear that I'm not trying to offend anyone, but I think
something like this would be helpful to show that nobody really plays a
game "at one of the corners"
Mike Harvey
>
> I agree that short examples would help a lot. Here's one, albeit incomplete:
>
> Game oriented gamesmaster: referee
> World oriented gamesmaster: ?
I don't think that 'referee' really fits for a gamist. Referee suggests
an impartial, non-participating observer (which actually sounds more
simulationist, since a properly designed simulation runs itself).
A gamist GM definitely participates, and sometimes even takes on an
adversarial role. In fact I rather think of him as a sports trainer,
providing an engaging challenge while encouraging players onward. How
about:
Story oriented gamesmaster: storyteller, guide
Game oriented gamesmaster: challenger
World oriented gamesmaster: animator, builder
Mike
Psychohist
Rempt posts, in part:
I go with Eduard's "world guide" (he's one of my
players, but that isn't the reason). I'm obviously
a world-oriented GM, but I don't feel that I'm
"simulating" anything - I'm not a computer program!
What I do is much more like giving the characters a
guided tour of the world, and draw their attention
to events that they may want to act on.
Irina
I thought of another possibility on the way home from work today - "manager" or
"game manager".
To me, "World guide" is focused too much on the player characters' interactions
with the world, giving short shrift to the gamesmaster's creation or
exploration of it. I have the same critique of Jeff Bowers' suggestions,
though I do like the connotations of 'arbiter'.
Of course, 'world guide' could be interpreted as 'guiding the world' rather
than 'guiding the players'....
Warren
red
> Story oriented gamesmaster: storyteller
> Game oriented gamesmaster: referee
> World oriented gamesmaster: ?
God
red
> I thought of another possibility on the way home from work today - "manager" or
> "game manager".
Ugh. I'd rather saw off my own leg with a rusty spoon.
Jeff Bowers
Barbara Robson wrote in message <362fd...@news.adfa.oz.au>...
>Jeff Bowers <bow...@cs.byu.edu> writes:
>
>>[...] Essentially in a pure dramatist
>>game the GM could create a script and the players and the GM could read
>>the script, and perhaps ad-lib some parts, though only if they knew the
>>complete script and were sure that the parts they introduced would make
>>a better story.
>
>its pure form) to be centered on the GM -- GM and players ideally work
>together to produce a good story. Second, there is nothing in the
>definition of dramatism that requires preplotting -- a pure dramatist
>game could just as easily be entirely ad-libbed by the players and GM
>alike (although it is more difficult to come up with a good story
>without some preplanning).
>
I agree with your first point. I deliberately used the word "could" in the
first sentence you quoted because there are other ways that a pure dramatist
game could go. This seemed to me a good example of a pure dramatist game to
the point of absurdity. The second point I disagree with though, for
essentially the reason you stated. If someone is trying to make a game with
the goal of creating the best story possible, they wouldn't leave everything
to chance by not pre-plotting.
My intention in creating these descriptions is to eliminate the tendency
that people have to completely defend their preferred style. These
descriptions should be such that some who considers themself to be a
"dramatist" or "simulationist" or "gamist" could look at it and say, "Well,
I certainly don't go that far, that wouldn't be any fun." Then the
three-fold becomes more of a tool of measurement than "territory" to argue
over.
Amber, Dan, Dare, or Julie
>
> (I temporarily have access again! Hooray!)
>
> In article <70fv04$u5q$1...@nntp3.u.washington.edu>,
> mkku...@kingman.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
> >
> >I would say that there is general consensus that resolution of in-game
> >events is covered by the Threefold. There is considerable but not
> >unanimous agreement that scenario design is covered.
>
> example I don't think is properly categorized by any of the
> threefold's elements.
>
> It's my old example of "playing for the neat bits." I don't
> think I did a real good job explaining last time, so here's
> a second try.
<snip>
I think most people's reaction was to boggle over this, then assign it
to the undefined territory on the Threefold. (As the new FAQ states,
there are people who aren't dramatist, simulationist, or gamist, but
something else entirely, and we just haven't classified them yet.
Someone who prefers this form would qualify.)
- Dare "Just grin and Dare it!"
* All typos in the previous message are to be considered edicts of Eris.
Please update your dictionaries accordingly.
* Check 47 USC( http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.shtml ). You
spam, you pay up to 500$ US.
* Hi! I'm a replicating .sig virus! Join the fun and copy me into yours!
:)
* http://members.xoom.com/Darekun/GURPS/GURPScombat.txt
Neelakantan Krishnaswami
In article <70fv04$u5q$1...@nntp3.u.washington.edu>,
mkku...@kingman.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
>
>I would say that there is general consensus that resolution of in-game
>events is covered by the Threefold. There is considerable but not
>unanimous agreement that scenario design is covered.
Count me as one who disagrees with both these points. Here's an
example I don't think is properly categorized by any of the
threefold's elements.
It's my old example of "playing for the neat bits." I don't
think I did a real good job explaining last time, so here's
a second try.
This style depends on players creating characters they hook
on to through a series of neat images: a gambler winning a
hand with the comment "Oh well, I just have two pairs -- of
queens," or a man standing in a room full of corpses with
a smoking gun and a childlike expression of befuddlement.
It doesn't really matter what it is, as long as it grabs
the player of that character with a really power visceral
effect.
It's somewhat uncommon that any of these images will have
any particular resonance for any of the other players, and
when it does, it's often a quite different emotional hit.
In any event, each player describes the scene they want to
set, and the other players take on the roles of the NPCs
needed to play through the scene. The player of the main
character can simply make whatever rulings he (or she)
needs at any point. (For example, the player of the gambler
above can simply decree that his opponent has a very high
hand, just below what he can beat....)
What results is a set of disconnected, disjointed scenes,
with a different one for each character. The Threefold
doesn't describe the structure -- it's /not/ a game, or
a simulation, and the narrative is disjointed and incoherent
for everyone but the player (for whom the scene has a
strong enough personal resonance that this doesn't matter).
The action-resolution is likewise neither gamist, simulationist,
nor dramatist -- because none of these things are taken
to be vital. Instead, it's the kick of seeing a scene
that has an emotional resonance for the player happen
outside his or head own head that's being emphasized.
(What is this for? It's a really effective pregame for
solidifying a PC you don't have a firm understanding of,
though it is fascinating enough to stand on its own.)
Neel
John Mack
Krishnaswami) wrote:
>Count me as one who disagrees with both these points. Here's an
>example I don't think is properly categorized by any of the
>threefold's elements.
>
>It's my old example of "playing for the neat bits." I don't
>think I did a real good job explaining last time, so here's
>a second try.
>
>This style depends on players creating characters they hook
>on to through a series of neat images: a gambler winning a
>hand with the comment "Oh well, I just have two pairs -- of
>queens," or a man standing in a room full of corpses with
>a smoking gun and a childlike expression of befuddlement.
>It doesn't really matter what it is, as long as it grabs
>the player of that character with a really power visceral
>effect.
>
[...]
>
>What results is a set of disconnected, disjointed scenes,
>with a different one for each character. The Threefold
>doesn't describe the structure -- it's /not/ a game, or
>a simulation, and the narrative is disjointed and incoherent
>for everyone but the player (for whom the scene has a
>strong enough personal resonance that this doesn't matter).
[...]
I'd class this as clearly Dramatist. Okay, so it's not part of the
overall narrative, but each scene - each "neat bit" - is a
self-contained story in itself.
I design my entire chronicle this way - for each session, I prepare a
set of nodes: scenes that I feel confident I can steer the players
towards without obvious railroading. Not all nodes get used, and most
of each session is spent weaving a story from character actions that I
didn't preplan for. But when we hit a node, I've carefully constructed
it around the PC and around previous events, to be a moment of high
drama. Part of the challenge for me as a Dramatist GM, is to not only
make each "neat bit" truly neat, but to also integrate it smoothly
into the player-defined story.
John Mack
Role-Playing Games: Theory and Practice
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~tarim/rpg/rpgpage.htm
Last Update: July 9, 1998
"But ... they're naked!"
"Of course! It's dangerous to jump through flames with your clothes on."
Neelakantan Krishnaswami
>On Sat, 24 Oct 1998 01:59:56 GMT, ne...@alum.mit.edu (Neelakantan
>Krishnaswami) wrote:
>
>>This style depends on players creating characters they hook
>>on to through a series of neat images: a gambler winning a
>>hand with the comment "Oh well, I just have two pairs -- of
>>queens," or a man standing in a room full of corpses with
>>a smoking gun and a childlike expression of befuddlement.
>>It doesn't really matter what it is, as long as it grabs
>>the player of that character with a really power visceral
>>effect.
>>
>[...]
>>
>>What results is a set of disconnected, disjointed scenes,
>>with a different one for each character. The Threefold
>>doesn't describe the structure -- it's /not/ a game, or
>>a simulation, and the narrative is disjointed and incoherent
>>for everyone but the player (for whom the scene has a
>>strong enough personal resonance that this doesn't matter).
>
>overall narrative, but each scene - each "neat bit" - is a
>self-contained story in itself.
Actually, this isn't the case at all. There's no requirement
for a scene to have any sort of clean narrative arc, because
there's no real requirement for the scene to make any sense
to anyone except the main player. It's more like playing
through a piece of a remembered dream than anything else.
A narrative is basically a tool for communicating one person's
vision to another, but that's not what's happening in this
style. This is a way of pulling a personal vision outside
of yourself so that you can look at it and understand it better
for yourself.
The other players are tools to this end, and don't have to
understand exactly what they're doing or why. (Though usually
there are explanations in the setup to the scene. Note that
there is no requirement that this explanation be revealed in
the action, though.)
I feel I'm being too vague and theoretical to communicate
properly -- am I getting through at all?
Neel
red
> Actually, this isn't the case at all. There's no requirement
> for a scene to have any sort of clean narrative arc, because
> there's no real requirement for the scene to make any sense
> to anyone except the main player. It's more like playing
> through a piece of a remembered dream than anything else.
Ah, very interesting. Now this strikes a chord, as my current group
uses cut-aways for this effect. Although the the game itself is
basically World oriented, each player does a cut-away for their
character at the start of each session. The idea originally came from
the fact that the game was themed on something like the Avengers;
1960's, serial, each character gets a few seconds of screen time to
identify with the audience and just sort of establish themselves.
Translated to roleplaying, each player describes the character in some
scene appropriate to the character. We've had a pretty wide range of
uses for this device; some of these cut-aways have been flashbacks to
past events, some flash-forwards, many are simply setting/reinforcing
the "where we were last week." This has a marvellous effect for
character exposition, in that players can reveal elements of their
characters which would not or could not come up in play. It sort of
allows us to step out into actor stance and simply portray something
"cool" from our vision of the character. Everything that takes place in
the cut-away's is strictly firewalled, and we have complete freedom to
do what we want during those cutaways. Seeing as this game is Mage, it
was often used to portray rituals of initiation etc, or old family
backgrounds, or the reason for the opinions and emotions of a character.
In this game, my old character had to take an honourable discharge
recently for external reasons. My new character is Order of Hermes, and
after reading the tradition book I now have a vision of a character who
will only hang out with the other characters in his spare time. Most of
his life will be taken up within the OoH; and one of the things I can do
with this is simply portray all of that through cut-aways. Another
possibility I've been thinking of is very similar to what you described
previously; I also thought of the term "scene setting". Basically, I
figure the player proposes the scene and hands responsibility for it
over to the GM, who then handles all the NPC's and countless minutiae
beyond the character's direct control. To some extent we have precedent
for it in the mage game, as on one occassion a character went home to
visit his family for Christmas. The rest of the players all took up
instant-family-member characters, and we played out the whole family
meal with all the sniping and affection appropriate to this sort of
situation. We "wasted" a whole session on this exercise, but it gave us
all (as players) an excellent insight into that character and a a bump
back to the real world.
I can easily imaging this new OoH character involved arguments over the
intricacies of some obscure magickal effect; I think it would be fun,
and (importantly) consistent with the character, to set a scene of such
a debate and then have the argument, either with other player assistance
or just with the GM. In both this "set scene" (set piece?) and the
"normal" focus of the game, the GM is still there as the impersonal
arbiter of the world; although the scene is what I-the-player wants to
achieve, it has nothing to do with what I-the-character wants to
achieve. Once the scene is set, I would have no more control over it
than any other aspect of the game, I am merely submitting a scene for GM
adjudication, one might say.
Anyway, it seems there are some similarities here, so I'd be very keen
to hear what kind of results you have had or expect to get. I am also
wondering - is this a kind of real-time blue-booking? Any thoughts?
Triad3204
In article <19981019004208...@ng87.aol.com>, psych...@aol.com
(Psychohist) writes:
> Several people suggested a fourth group of styles, which
> was "Social". However, discussion died down as there
> was little consensus about what that meant in contrast to
> the other styles.
>
>Or even whether one could even discuss it on the same level.
Using this ancient little post from Warren, I'm going to reopen an old subject.
It's been more than a year, I believe, since this subject was first breeched
(please tell me it hasn't been as much as two <g>). In any case, at that time I
was a very loud opponent of adding the fourth vertex to the Threefold -- I
didn't see its usefulness.
With greater circumspection I have reached three conclusions that should (I
hope) respur the old debate and perhaps resolve it (ha!):
1. I vastly prefer the definition of the Threefold/Fourfold as "a model
describing the considerations used by the GM at the point of resolving an
action" (for reasons which I will enumerate below). Under this definition it is
easy to see that the Social vertex should be added -- coming up with examples
of GMs using social considerations to influence the decision-making process is
easy ("don't kill Bob's character; he's my best pal" for a simple one).
2. When moving into the defintion of the Threefold/Fourfold as "a model
describing the way the gaming group perceives the roleplaying event" it seems
that the Social vertex is also assured a place. After some circumspection,
however, it does not -- for reasons which I believe Warren is alluding to
above. There are people who "see gaming as a social event", but see it as a
"social event which focuses on telling a story" (for example). At this point
the social vertex has actually become a perpendicular consideration, not a
vertex at all -- it is something which does not exist separately from the other
vertices, but rather is fully capable of encompassing them completely. Whereas
you cannot view a game as simultaneously being entirely a simulation and
entirely a game you COULD view the event as being entirely a social event
dealing entirely with a game (or, alternatively, a social event dealing
entirely with a simulation).
And hence, if you agree with these two premises, the social vertex becomes a
litmus test of sorts -- it exists in the model if you assume the former
definition, but not if you assume the latter. Whereas with the limits of the
Threefold as it exists the two definitions could exist side-by-side with some
degree of harmony, the debate of the Social vertex (I think) renders the two
incompatible. Here comes conclusion #3:
3. Insofar that the inclusion of the social vertex under the former definition
makes for a more coherent and unified model, I feel that that definition should
be accepted and the latter discarded.[1] Clearly looking at how gaming groups
perceive the roleplaying event is still important, but I think a different
model is needed -- clearly an inclusive, exclusionary model (see the footnote)
is not the way this should be implemented.
There, that ought to stir things up. ;-)
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
[1] To clarify: It is accepted that the Threefold/Fourfold is an exclusionary
model -- a pure simulationist cannot simultaneously be a pure dramatist. The
former definition has the model attempting to include all possible criteria
used by GMs at the resolution point -- insofar as social considerations are a
possible criteria and they can be included in the model the model *does* allow
"all possible critera used by the GMs at the resolution point" to be included,
hence the model is unified and inclusive. The latter definition, however,
attempts to include all "perceptions of the roleplaying event" -- insofar as
the social perception of the roleplaying event cannot be included while
maintaining the exclusionary nature of the model the model either changes its
basic nature OR ceases to be unified and inclusive (since one "perception of
the roleplaying event" is excluded). [I'm still not sure this is entirely
clear. I am, of course, willing to clarify liberally.]
P.S. Just found something interesting while catching up on my reading -- Roger
Bonzer's proposed alternatives to the Threefold, dealing with exactly the
dichotomy of definitions discussed here. Why no one replied to it is beyond me.
I no longer believe that a second threefold/fourfold designed to deal with the
second definition (of "event perception"/"get out of the event") works (because
the model assumes exclusion which I feel it clearly cannot do) -- but I do
think it important that we begin to ask ourselves how to model this second
question. A question in no way less important than the one the
Threefold/Fourfold is best designed to handle.
Jason Schneiderman
tria...@aol.com (Triad3204) wrote:
> 2. When moving into the defintion of the Threefold/Fourfold as "a model
> describing the way the gaming group perceives the roleplaying event" it seems
> that the Social vertex is also assured a place. After some circumspection,
> however, it does not -- for reasons which I believe Warren is alluding to
> above. There are people who "see gaming as a social event", but see it as a
> "social event which focuses on telling a story" (for example)...
I was primarily a lurker when this debate came around last time, so I may
have missed some of the key elements to the argument. Keep this in mind as
I go on...
In my opinion, the "social" vertex of the Triad reflects how important the
metagame is within the context of the game universe; how out-of-character
considerations are rewarded in game. This relates in a large way to games
like Paranoia or TOON, where an explicit goal is doing things that are
amusing *to the other players* - characters will often be rewarded for
doing things that are funny not within the context of the game world, but
within the context of the game group. (The Coyote doesn't find it funny
when the bomb goes off in his hands, but we do.) The social axis is
reinforced with every notation that tells game masters to "Hand out a
point of experience for making all the players laugh/taking notes/bringing
soda to the game." The Camarilla - the official organization for the
Mind's Eye Theatre LARP - runs in a similar fashion; the advancement of
your character is tied not only to your actions in game, but to the
service you as a player provide for the organization and the community.
I have a mental image of a tetrahedron when I do this - the g/s/d triangle
as a plane, tapering down to the social vertex at a point. The more the
game emphasizes the social aspect, the further one gets from the confines
of the game world. At the very tip, you end up with a group that gets
together to "game" but doesn't do an awful lot of roleplaying at all --
and I've been involved with groups that have gone on in such a manner for
years and wouldn't change a thing, so that's not meant as an
across-the-board negative.
Thoughts? Comments?
- Jason Schneiderman
--
jad...@ma.ultranet.com
"But except in dreams you're never really free...and don't the sun look
angry at me." _Desperadoes_Under_The_Eaves_, Warren Zevon.
Judson Lester
> describing the considerations used by the GM at the point of resolving an
> action" (for reasons which I will enumerate below). Under this
definition it is
> easy to see that the Social vertex should be added -- coming up with examples
> of GMs using social considerations to influence the decision-making process is
> easy ("don't kill Bob's character; he's my best pal" for a simple one).
>
some success, and I'd like to ake a crack at number one here.
Simply, it seems to me that the inclusion of a Social vertex suddenly
opens a door to a host of triviality that might affect the GM's decisions;
the Deadline Vertex ("If I start this moral dilemma, we'l be here all
night"), or the Manuals Vertex ("I just bought the New Region Sourcebook,
and I want to use it") neither of which seem to be valid descriptors.
Correction: they are valid descriptors, in that GMs do make decisions with
those influences, but those influences, it seems to me, are not OF the
game. Sim/Dram/Gam all are of the nature of the game, and are legitamate
considerations in the realm of the game itself. Other vertices are more
IRL-type considerations which _ought_ not effect things, but often do.
Analogiously, an actor might be described as Method or Classical or
Shakespearian, but if personal concerns affect their performance (their
Hamlet is especially depressed due to a death in their family; their Uncle
Vanya is jumpy and eager because of that extra espresso offstage) we see
this as an error to be overlooked, not a contribution; there aren't
Caffiene actors, or Mourning actors. Similarly, Social GMs seems to be a
crticism rather than a descriptor.
A related point: the Threefold argument seems to be a asthetic one. As
such it hinges on the idea that Roleplaying is an art form, worthy of
criticism in the artistic sense, and the style descriptions are most
related to literary styles. Again, that seems to put a definite spin on
things, since it implies that 'goofing off' is bad. After all, how would
we feel as an audience if the actors onstage broke into private jokes
onstage? Is it better perhaps to say that RP can be art, but that, like
writing, isn't necessarily? (Substitute 'high art' if the previous
offends asthetic sensibilities.)
--
Judson Lester
Public Key available upon request.
red
> I have a mental image of a tetrahedron when I do this - the g/s/d triangle
> as a plane, tapering down to the social vertex at a point. The more the
> game emphasizes the social aspect, the further one gets from the confines
> of the game world. At the very tip, you end up with a group that gets
> together to "game" but doesn't do an awful lot of roleplaying at all --
> and I've been involved with groups that have gone on in such a manner for
> years and wouldn't change a thing, so that's not meant as an
> across-the-board negative.
>
> Thoughts? Comments?
Seems a reasonable enough description to me. Woudl you then see some
elements of drama occurring on this social vertex, as a an attempt by
the GM to ensure that the real-human players all have a gpood enough
time to justify coming back?
Mary K. Kuhner
Judson Lester <les...@juno.eecs.tulane.edu> wrote:
>Sim/Dram/Gam all are of the nature of the game, and are legitamate
>considerations in the realm of the game itself. Other vertices are more
>IRL-type considerations which _ought_ not effect things, but often do.
I'm not sure this is true in all cases. One specific issue I'd look
at is session pacing. Many groups enjoy the game more if the GM pays
attention to where, temporally, certain events fall in the session:
they don't like to split scenes across session breaks, start overly
demanding things late in the evening, or go home feeling like they've
spun their wheels all session long. This could be Drama, but it's
fairly external to the game-story itself, since the same exact storyline
might be judged good or bad depending on where in the alloted time it
fell. I think it's arguably a Social concern.
>Again, that seems to put a definite spin on
>things, since it implies that 'goofing off' is bad.
You're doing the same thing that opponents of the Game vertex did:
assuming that admitting Social issues into the game necessarily
makes it worse art. While this *can* be true, I'm not at all convinced
that it *must* be true.
Here's an example to ponder. Jon once ran a long series of scenarios
so viciously lethal that his player (me) became hopelessly
demoralized. As an attempt to make things better, he ran a couple of
one-shot games with relatively easy challenges. This worked--having
PCs who could actually succeed and survive was good for my morale.
I'd say that if the Social is part of the Three(Four)fold model, then
this was a successful use of Social criteria to improve the game, not
damage it.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Adam Morse
les...@juno.eecs.tulane.edu (Judson Lester) wrote:
> > 1. I vastly prefer the definition of the Threefold/Fourfold as "a model
> > describing the considerations used by the GM at the point of resolving an
> > action" (for reasons which I will enumerate below). Under this
> definition it is
> > easy to see that the Social vertex should be added -- coming up with
examples
> > of GMs using social considerations to influence the decision-making
process is
> > easy ("don't kill Bob's character; he's my best pal" for a simple one).
> >
> Simply, it seems to me that the inclusion of a Social vertex suddenly
> opens a door to a host of triviality that might affect the GM's decisions;
> the Deadline Vertex ("If I start this moral dilemma, we'l be here all
> night"), or the Manuals Vertex ("I just bought the New Region Sourcebook,
> and I want to use it") neither of which seem to be valid descriptors.
> Correction: they are valid descriptors, in that GMs do make decisions with
> those influences, but those influences, it seems to me, are not OF the
> game. Sim/Dram/Gam all are of the nature of the game, and are legitamate
> considerations in the realm of the game itself. Other vertices are more
> IRL-type considerations which _ought_ not effect things, but often do.
> Analogiously, an actor might be described as Method or Classical or
> Shakespearian, but if personal concerns affect their performance (their
> Hamlet is especially depressed due to a death in their family; their Uncle
> Vanya is jumpy and eager because of that extra espresso offstage) we see
> this as an error to be overlooked, not a contribution; there aren't
> Caffiene actors, or Mourning actors. Similarly, Social GMs seems to be a
> crticism rather than a descriptor.
I'm not sure that I'd criticize Social aspects of the game contract.
Example: script immunity (at least in the weak form of "unless you do
something really stupid, or are so obviously unlucky I can't do anything
about it you won't die") is often motivated by social concerns (it can
also be motivated by Dramatist and Gamist concerns, but is often motivated
by purely social concerns). This is clearly not an intrinsically good
thing. But it can be...it can keep a game group happy, which is what a
lot of people are doing this for. :)
I'd criticize Social aspects if they aren't supposed to be included...a GM
who agrees to run a purely simulationist game and takes into account
social aspects is bad because it violates the game contract, and
consequently won't let people acheive their goals. But tons of people
play for the social benefits too...I don't think I'd play in a regular
campaign that didn't have some social benefits. If that was incompatible
with pure concerns from another concern, so be it...I'd go with the social
at some level. Of course, I don't choose to play in games which are only
socially motivated...if the gaming isn't good in other ways, why not just
hang out and talk? But different people's priorities are
different...that's kinda the point of the threefold (or amongst its
points).
Adam Morse
Nightshade
>A related point: the Threefold argument seems to be a asthetic one. As
>such it hinges on the idea that Roleplaying is an art form, worthy of
>criticism in the artistic sense, and the style descriptions are most
>related to literary styles. Again, that seems to put a definite spin on
>things, since it implies that 'goofing off' is bad. After all, how would
I think that's reading things into it that aren't there, really. I've
seen all three styles played either very loose or quite tight,
depending on the game contract; in fact, it's fairly rare to find
gamist players who are really hardnosed any more, though in the early
days enough people carried over wargaming habits so that it was
sometimes the case then.
Triad3204
In article <lester-0912...@dialup37.tcs.tulane.edu>,
les...@juno.eecs.tulane.edu (Judson Lester) writes:
>Simply, it seems to me that the inclusion of a Social vertex suddenly
>opens a door to a host of triviality that might affect the GM's decisions;
>the Deadline Vertex ("If I start this moral dilemma, we'l be here all
>night"), or the Manuals Vertex ("I just bought the New Region Sourcebook,
>and I want to use it") neither of which seem to be valid descriptors.
The first seems to me to be another instance of the Social vertex. The second
might warrant a "Self Interest" vertex, unless you could somehow justify it
under the Social vertex as well by saying that it is "taking the player's
interests into consideration" (and then including the GM as a player).
> Sim/Dram/Gam all are of the nature of the game, and are legitamate
> considerations in the realm of the game itself.
I don't see the distinction. Surely you can see that for some people (if not
for yourself) one of the reasons for getting together is to be with your
friends. How does that NOT make the Social vertex part of the "nature of the
game"?
If you are saying that it is not part of the world, then the dramatist and
gamist vertextes should be eliminated.
If you are saying that it is not part of the plot, then I would argue that the
gamist (and possibly the simulationist depending on how you define plot)
shouldbe eliminated.
So now you're in a quandary. Why is Social excluded, but the other three
included?
> Other vertices are more
> IRL-type considerations which _ought_ not effect things, but often do.
And now we're in arbitrary mode. Who gets to decide what "ought" to be part of
a decision? If you had asked me a few years ago I would have told you that
gamist concerns "ought not" to have an effect (you can probably find old (as
opposed to the more recent) anti-D&D postings from me over on rec.games.frp.dnd
that express this very sentiment in different terms).
> Analogiously, an actor might be described as Method or Classical or
> Shakespearian, but if personal concerns affect their performance (their
> Hamlet is especially depressed due to a death in their family; their Uncle
> Vanya is jumpy and eager because of that extra espresso offstage) we see
> this as an error to be overlooked, not a contribution; there aren't
> Caffiene actors, or Mourning actors.
A more appropriate analogy would be to condemn actors who choose to do things
specifically to entertain the audience -- i.e., make decisions based on their
idea of how others involved will react. Although some people dislike this
style, others do not.
And I would argue that THERE is a distinction in what you are saying. People do
WANT to make decisions that will be sympathetic to the other players -- it is a
conscious choice. The subconscious effects of caffeine or a death in the family
*do* exist on a different plane; but not for the reasons you suggest. It is the
difference between conscious and subconscious influences.
> Is it better perhaps to say that RP can be art, but that, like
> writing, isn't necessarily? (Substitute 'high art' if the previous
> offends asthetic sensibilities.)
Yes and yes. "High art" is a much preferable term, although it still possesses
that odd quality of "Who gets to decide?" Some people think Shakespeare and
Picasso suck, after all -- are they not "art" or "high art" as a result?
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
woodelf
tria...@aol.com (Triad3204) wrote:
> In article <lester-0912...@dialup37.tcs.tulane.edu>,
> les...@juno.eecs.tulane.edu (Judson Lester) writes:
>
> >Simply, it seems to me that the inclusion of a Social vertex suddenly
> >opens a door to a host of triviality that might affect the GM's decisions;
> >the Deadline Vertex ("If I start this moral dilemma, we'l be here all
> >night"), or the Manuals Vertex ("I just bought the New Region Sourcebook,
> >and I want to use it") neither of which seem to be valid descriptors.
>
> The first seems to me to be another instance of the Social vertex. The second
> might warrant a "Self Interest" vertex, unless you could somehow justify it
> under the Social vertex as well by saying that it is "taking the player's
> interests into consideration" (and then including the GM as a player).
>
> > Sim/Dram/Gam all are of the nature of the game, and are legitamate
> > considerations in the realm of the game itself.
>
> I don't see the distinction. Surely you can see that for some people (if not
> for yourself) one of the reasons for getting together is to be with your
> friends. How does that NOT make the Social vertex part of the "nature of the
> game"?
let me think about this one...
it seems to me that while that is certainly true to a varying degree for
most roleplayers, it's still a different sort of issue. social issues
don't touch the game directly, but only through the intermediary of the
player, whereas the existing vertices all are directly part of the game,
regardless of who is playing. i agree that social concerns are definitely
part of the game, very strongly so for some people, i imagine.
(especially of the "henry's my friend and henry doesn't like it when his
characters are killed" sort.) but i have this nagging feeling that they
aren't part of the same model as the threefold.
> If you are saying that it is not part of the world, then the dramatist and
> gamist vertextes should be eliminated.
>
> If you are saying that it is not part of the plot, then I would argue that the
> gamist (and possibly the simulationist depending on how you define plot)
> shouldbe eliminated.
>
> So now you're in a quandary. Why is Social excluded, but the other three
> included?
see below. in short, i think that social isn't part of world, plot,
character, or any other part of the game proper. rather, it is part of
the players of the game, thus making it one step further removed than the
other vertices.
> > Other vertices are more
> > IRL-type considerations which _ought_ not effect things, but often do.
>
> And now we're in arbitrary mode. Who gets to decide what "ought" to be part of
> a decision? If you had asked me a few years ago I would have told you that
> gamist concerns "ought not" to have an effect (you can probably find old (as
> opposed to the more recent) anti-D&D postings from me over on
rec.games.frp.dnd
> that express this very sentiment in different terms).
here's a thought that comes to mind. Fine divides roleplaying into 3
"frames." i don't remember their names off hand, but they basically come
down to character, player, and person. the 3 vertices all come into play
at the character and/or player levels, i.e., are "part of the game". the
"social" vertex comes in only at the person level (becaues it takes into
consideration elements that are unknown to the character and player), and
thus the distinction might not be arbitrary. while player-level issues
may be part of it, in the absense of person-frame issues, there are no
social concerns. who the player is outside of the game isn't
(technically) an issue for the existing vertices--gamism is clearly a
player-frame concern, and i'd say that simulationism is character-frame
while dramatism is player-frame.
mind you, i'm starting to think that perhaps the social vertex *is*
appropriate, but i'm not sure why, and can't really advance a cogent
argument in its favor.
woodelf <*>
nbar...@students.wisc.edu
http://www.upl.cs.wisc.edu/~woodelf/
I did not realize that similarity was required for the exercise of
compassion. --Delenn
John Kim
making the threefold model into a fourfold. Basically, I think
that the "Social" scale is on a different dimension than the
other three. The definition of "social" here seems to be
conforming to the preferences of other players.
The key point is that "social" seems to be defined as
not having tastes of one's own and conforming to others. For
example, a "social" GM who has a group of players who prefer
dramatist style, will make her games dramatist. But if his
players prefer a simulationist style, she will make her games
simulationist.
Justin Bacon <tria...@aol.com> wrote:
>les...@juno.eecs.tulane.edu (Judson Lester) writes:
>> Sim/Dram/Gam all are of the nature of the game, and are legitamate
>> considerations in the realm of the game itself.
>
>I don't see the distinction. Surely you can see that for some people
>(if not for yourself) one of the reasons for getting together is to
>be with your friends. How does that NOT make the Social vertex part
>of the "nature of the game"?
Well, can you define how a game will be different if it is
closer to the Social vertex as opposed to if it is farther away?
I haven't yet seen a clear characterization about how a "social"
game would be different from, say, a "dramatist" game.
At best, "social" would seem to be a catch-all for concerns
other than those included in the current threefold. I agree that
there are such concerns, I just think that "social" as a category
isn't very useful.
Judson Lester
> In article <lester-0912...@dialup37.tcs.tulane.edu>,
> les...@juno.eecs.tulane.edu (Judson Lester) writes:
>
> > Sim/Dram/Gam all are of the nature of the game, and are legitamate
> > considerations in the realm of the game itself.
>
> I don't see the distinction. Surely you can see that for some people (if not
> for yourself) one of the reasons for getting together is to be with your
> friends. How does that NOT make the Social vertex part of the "nature of the
> game"?
>
Certainly, I game to socialize, to some extent. However, the game itself
is most satisfying when the social distraction evaporates, everyone's in
character etc. Granted, the majority of the time we end up cracking wise
and exhibiting the Peanut Gallery variant of Audience mode, but there's a
general feeling amongst us (and I would presume most gamers) that "nothing
gets done" that the game "wasn't tight" or that "that was useless." The
Social aspect seems to be more akin to chatting during a movie, or an
actor breaking character and walking offstage. Yes, they happen, but they
don't serve the work, if you'll pardon that particular artism.
> If you are saying that it is not part of the world, then the dramatist and
> gamist vertextes should be eliminated.
>
> If you are saying that it is not part of the plot, then I would argue that the
> gamist (and possibly the simulationist depending on how you define plot)
> shouldbe eliminated.
>
> So now you're in a quandary. Why is Social excluded, but the other three
> included?
Only if I accept the fact that the Threefold is intended as a discriptor
of the roleplayer's expectations. To insist on this seems to be sort of
circular on your part, since it was you conclusion from the inclusion of
the Social vertex. I'm beginning to realize that my intent here was to
point out that the Social vertex's inclusion isn't as strong as your
argument concluded. Actualy, though, I do agree with your presentation of
the two schools of thought and their acceptance of the Social vertex. But
the argument for its inclusion needs to be much stronger before you can
say "The Threefold should be seen as an anticipitory discriptor rather
than a critical construct."
As a critical structure, the Threefold doesn't include the Social vertex
because it isn't intended as a value judgement. Critically, social
influences hurt roleplaying as an art, or even as an entertainment - not
to say being sociable isn't entertaining, but that the roleplaying doesn't
contribute as much.
Not to say that a critical structure can't be used to describe player
interests. For instance, an author might intend to produce a surrealist
piece with several major themes, etc, but that's independant of what
critics will later write about the piece.
>
> > Other vertices are more
> > IRL-type considerations which _ought_ not effect things, but often do.
>
> And now we're in arbitrary mode. Who gets to decide what "ought" to be part of
> a decision? If you had asked me a few years ago I would have told you that
> gamist concerns "ought not" to have an effect (you can probably find old (as
> opposed to the more recent) anti-D&D postings from me over on
rec.games.frp.dnd
> that express this very sentiment in different terms).
The definition of threefold is necessarily arbitrary; it's just arbitrated
by many hands, such that it has some authority. Specifically, though,
this is a silly rebuttal: why should you get to decide that it ought to be
included (or anyone, or ones)?
The three vertices have everything to do with the game itself, as a work
to be appreciated and criticized. If you presented a fourth vertex that
represeted as much of indivisible part, I'd be behind it. Social isn't,
though, for reasons I've elucidated previousy.
> > Is it better perhaps to say that RP can be art, but that, like
> > writing, isn't necessarily? (Substitute 'high art' if the previous
> > offends asthetic sensibilities.)
>
> Yes and yes. "High art" is a much preferable term, although it still possesses
> that odd quality of "Who gets to decide?" Some people think Shakespeare and
> Picasso suck, after all -- are they not "art" or "high art" as a result?
Right. But to conduct any sort of astethic discussion, we have to posit
the existence of art, and that some things are art and others simply
craft. Art we can criticize as art, beyond its technical acheivement,
craft we can't.
Triad3204
In article <nbarmore-201...@karahkan.cs.wisc.edu>,
nbar...@students.wisc.edu (woodelf) writes:
>it seems to me that while that is certainly true to a varying degree for
>most roleplayers, it's still a different sort of issue. social issues
>don't touch the game directly, but only through the intermediary of the
>player, whereas the existing vertices all are directly part of the game,
>regardless of who is playing
Remembering that there are two different sects of belief concerning what the
Threefold is.
[My preference.]
Do social concerns affect the decision-making process?
If yes, then they ARE a part of the Threefold.
If no, then they aren't.
[The other option.]
Are social concerns something which people view the "game as being"?
If yes, then they ARE a part of the Threefold.
If no, they aren't.
To me it's pretty obvious that the answer to both these questions is "yes" --
'nuff said.
> see below. in short, i think that social isn't part of world, plot,
> character, or any other part of the game proper. rather, it is part of
> the players of the game, thus making it one step further removed than the
> other vertices.
You are choosing to make a, b, and c to "part of the game proper" while you
define d as being "not part of the game proper". Hold on...
> here's a thought that comes to mind. Fine divides roleplaying into 3
> "frames." i don't remember their names off hand, but they basically come
> down to character, player, and person. the 3 vertices all come into play
> at the character and/or player levels, i.e., are "part of the game".
And here it's y and z which are part of the game, but not x. I find this
questionable -- if you begin to alter the definition of what a model is
supposed to cover in order to purposely remove an element that effort is very
suspect in my mind.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Triad3204
In article <75kse7$m...@news.service.uci.edu>, jh...@cosmic.ps.uci.edu (John
Kim) writes:
> The key point is that "social" seems to be defined as
>not having tastes of one's own and conforming to others. For
>example, a "social" GM who has a group of players who prefer
>dramatist style, will make her games dramatist. But if his
>players prefer a simulationist style, she will make her games
>simulationist.
My dice show that Bob's character should die at this point -- but I know Bob's
been having a tough week, and he doesn't need this. I don't kill Bob's
character.
Is that a dramatist, a simulationist, or a gamist decision?
What you're describing *does* seem quite separate from the Threefold/Fourfold
-- it is also quite separate from what I see the social vertex as being defined
as. You are dealing with the decision as to what rules the game will be played
under; the Fourfold deals with decisions made during the actual course of the
game.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Triad3204
In article <lester-2112...@dialup178.tcs.tulane.edu>,
les...@juno.eecs.tulane.edu (Judson Lester) writes:
>Certainly, I game to socialize, to some extent. However, the game itself
>is most satisfying when the social distraction evaporates, everyone's in
>character etc. Granted, the majority of the time we end up cracking wise
>and exhibiting the Peanut Gallery variant of Audience mode, but there's a
>general feeling amongst us (and I would presume most gamers) that "nothing
>gets done" that the game "wasn't tight" or that "that was useless." The
>Social aspect seems to be more akin to chatting during a movie, or an
>actor breaking character and walking offstage. Yes, they happen, but they
>don't serve the work, if you'll pardon that particular artism.
This is almost line for line the same type of critique laid against gamism when
it first popped up.
> Only if I accept the fact that the Threefold is intended as a discriptor
> of the roleplayer's expectations. To insist on this seems to be sort of
> circular on your part, since it was you conclusion from the inclusion of
> the Social vertex.
Hey! I don't even *like* that definition of the Threefold. There are two on the
boards:
[My Preference.] The Threefold analyzes the decision-making process of the GM.
[The Other Option.] The Threefold describes what the group/GM sees as being the
purpose of the game.
My point was that under *either* of these definitions, the social vertex finds
a place. Under the first it finds a place because social elements CAN impact
the decision-making process; under the second because there are many people who
see the game primarily as a social event.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Nicoson
>
> My dice show that Bob's character should die at this point -- but I
> know Bob's been having a tough week, and he doesn't need this.
> I don't kill Bob's character.
>
> Is that a dramatist, a simulationist, or a gamist decision?
I believe this is a gamist decision. Given Bob's rough week, the GM
rules that the game's challenge to Bob (the player) is not fair.
I suggest adding a second layer of GM *objectives*: social,
intellectual, and escapist. So one might say, "I employ simulation for
the purpose of escapism."
DJN
Psychohist
[My Preference.] The Threefold analyzes the decision-making
process of the GM.
[The Other Option.] The Threefold describes what the group/GM
sees as being the purpose of the game.
I think much of the strength of the triangle lies in its presentation of pure
aesthetics which can be used exclusively. Its next most important strength is
that fairly pure examples can actually be found, with advocates on this
newsgroup.
What would a purely social game look like? Does anything close exist in
actuality, and does it have advocates on this newsgroup?
Warren Dew
Adam Burke
Making up a story with some mates over a few drinks?
--
Adam Burke
http://student.uq.edu.au/~s335783
RONALD MC DONALD IS BIG BROTHER
Patrick O'Duffy
> What would a purely social game look like? Does anything close exist in
> actuality, and does it have advocates on this newsgroup?
How about "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen"? Very social, and
I'll happily
act as advocate...
--
Patrick O'Duffy, Brisbane, Australia
Journalism is not a profession or a trade. It is a cheap catch-all for
fuckoffs
& misfits - a false doorway to the backside of life, a filthy
piss-ridden little
hole nailed off by the building inspector, but just deep enough for a
wino to curl
up from the sidewalk and masturbate like a chimp in a zoo-cage.
HUNTER S. THOMPSON, "Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas"
Triad3204
In article <3698F2...@yahoo.com>, Nicoson <bigdavexM...@yahoo.com>
writes:
>I suggest adding a second layer of GM *objectives*: social,
>intellectual, and escapist. So one might say, "I employ simulation for
>the purpose of escapism."
This is extremely late, but I wanted to point out that this is lightning in a
bottle IMO. Does it work in more general terms? Is it a particularly useful
tool?
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com